Yogesh Khanna JUDGMENT
Yogesh Khanna, J.
1. This appeal is against the notice dated 13.11.2014 of the Official Liquidator and against the report dated 22.08.2014 of the One Man Committee constituted by this Court.
2. It is only on the basis of the report dated 22.08.2014 of the One Man Committee, the Official Liquidator had demanded the vacant possession of flat bearing No. 402, Panchmukhi Apartment and another flat bearing No. 502, Panchamrat Apartment, Off Yari Road, Versova (West), Andheri, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as flat Nos. 402 and 502 respectively). The appellant alleged to be a bona fide purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and claims to be a registered owner of the flats. The appellant claims to be in possession of the flats since 20.04.1998 pursuant to two separate agreements to sell dated 13.04.1998, registered in his favour on 20.04.1998. The said agreements were executed in his favour by the respondent company through its authorized agent Mr. Dharmendra Pal Singh Chauhan - an authorized person - authorized vide resolution dated 10.03.1998 of the board of directors of the respondent company.
3. As alleged, in the year 1998 the appellant was seeking to buy residential properties in Mumbai in the area of Andheri and came to know the respondent company was trying to sell its properties in Panchamrat and Panchmukhi Apartments in Versova area of Andheri (West). In March, 1998 the appellant approached the respondent company and negotiated with Shri D. Pal Singh Chauhan, an authorized agent of the respondent company for purchase of the flats for an amount of ` 31 lacs for Flat No. 402 and for an amount of ` 38 lacs for Flat No. 502. Though the appellant was ready and willing to pay the purchase price by a cheque but Sh. V.K. Sharma, the then managing director of the respondent Company insisted for cash as the company had to pay off its retail depositors. The sale consideration was thus paid in cash.
4. The Board Resolution dated 10.03.1998-Annexure A-2 reveals Mr. Dharmendra Pal Singh Chauhan was authorized to negotiate, sign and do all acts ancillary for sale of the flats, on behalf of the respondent company. The said resolution is on the letter head of the respondent company and at its bottom it notes the respondent company deals in real estate, colonizing, financing, leasing, hire-purchasing etc and hence the usual course of business of the respondent company was to deal in real-estate.
5. Now, qua flat No. 402 (supra), the appellant had filed on record a receipt of ` 25.50 lac issued by the respondent company in his favour with breakup of the cash amount given to the respondent. The agreement to sell dated 13.04.1998 executed for this flat is also filed and it was executed on a stamp paper purchased from one Yogesh G Dave a stamp vendor in the name of respondent company and it bear the stamp of franking machine showing stamp duty of ` 2,62,750/- paid by the appellant on 15.04.1998 to purchase flat No. 402. If one peruse the Clause Nos. 2(b), 4, 8, and 9 of the agreement to sell, it says the possession is handed over at the time of execution of the agreement to sell but whereas the balance amount of ` 5.50 Lac shall be payable at the time of registration of the said agreement - i.e. within ten days from its date of execution. The copy of the registration certificate dated 20.04.1998 issued by the Sub Registrar Mumbai mentions the consideration paid as ` 31.00 Lac for purchase of flat No. 402. It notes valuation checked as per PR1998 correctly calculated and paid. It also notes the stamp duty of ` 2,06,750/- and registration fee of