COMPANY APPEAL (DB) No.8 OF 2010 ----------- Against the order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the learned Company Judge in I.A. No.6250 of 2009 in Company Petition No.11 of 1996. ---------- Meena Devi, wife of Uma Shankar Bhagat, resident of Mohalla_Maharajganj, Police Station-Jamui, District-Jamui ----(Applicant) --- Appellant. Versus 1. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-4. 2. The Executive Director, the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan,Patna -4 ----(Respondents)– Respondents Ist Set. 3. M/S Nacro Chemical Limited (in Liquidation) through the Official Liquidator, Patna High Court, Patna ---(Petitioner) --- Respondent second set ---- Respondents. ------------ For the appellant : Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr.Advocate. Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr.Advocate. Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate. For the Official Liquidator : Mr. Arvind Shukla, Official Liquidator, Mr.Subhash Chandra Mishra, Advocate. ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA S.K.Katriar,J This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 12.3.2010, passed by the learned Company Judge, whereby he has disposed of I.A. No. 6250 of 2009, which was filed in Company Petition No. 11 of 1996 (M/S Misrilall Jain (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S Nacro Chemicals Ltd.). Learned Company Judge has permitted respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein to realize the charges as per its policy decision in force on the relevant 2 date(s), has prohibited it from raising any demand or realizing its past dues against M/S Nacro Chemicals Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’), from the present appellant, with the liberty to challenge the validity of the policy decision under which the realization has been permitted. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The Company had taken the industrial plot in question from respondent nos. 1 and 2, on the basis of registered lease deed dated 21.12.1992, for period of 99, years for valuable consideration. By order dated 1.8.1997, passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No.11 of 1996, winding up of the Company was ordered, with which all its assets passed on to the possession of the Official Liquidator. The plot of land was put on auction sale, and by order dated 15.2.2007, of the learned Company Judge, the same was auction sold in favour of Uma Shankar Bhagat, the appellant’s husband. Possession was made over to him on 19.4.2007. The registered deed of lease covering 77 years was executed by the learned Official Liquidator in favour of Uma Shankar Bhagat. The present appellant thereafter submitted an application before respondent nos. 1 and 2 that Uma Shankar Bhagat is transferring his rights under lease deed in favour of the present appellant and, therefore, prayed that the names of 3 Uma Shankar Bhagat and the appellant be mutated in its record one after the other. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 granted the permission, but sought to realize the requisite charges in terms of the relevant policy decision. The appellant objected to some of the items of realization which led to the aforesaid I.A. No.6250 of 2009, at the instance of Meena Devi. The same has been disposed of by the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has observed that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are prohibited from raising any demand or realization of any of the past dues of the Company, from Uma Shankar Bhagat or the present appellant. He has further observed that respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to realize the dues as per the relevant policy decision in force at the relevant point of time. He has, however, given liberty to the appellant to challenge the validity of the policy decision in a duly constituted proceedings. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We entirely agree with that part of the order of the learned Single Judge whereby he prohibited respondent nos. 1 and 2 from realizing the dues from the appellant’s husband which was payable by the Company and had fallen due before the order of liquidation. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State 4 Electricity Board and another, (1995) 2 SCC 648. That was a case where the transferee of a property was required to pay the electricity dues of the previous owner for the period prior to the date of alienation. The Supreme Court held that the past arrears for consumption of powers by the previous owner(s) can not be realized from the transferee of the property, and allowed the appeal. The Board can realize it from the previous owner or his heir(s) or legal representative. The judgment applies on all fours to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. In so far as the remaining items are concerned, the same are sought to be realized by respondent nos. 1 and 2 under a policy decision formulated by its Board of Directors. The question which arises before us as to which policy decision would be applicable to the present case. We are of the view that the policy decision which was in force on 15.2.2007, the date on which auction sale had been approved by the learned Company Judge. The same is dated 12.3.2004, and was marked Annexure-K/1 to the supplementary reply of respondent nos. 1 and 2, before the learned Company Judge. 5. As to the third aspect of the matter, an effort was made before us inviting us to decide the issue relating to validity of the policy decision. It is not clear before us whether or not this issue was agitated before the learned Company Judge. In 5 any case, there is no discussion of it in the impugned order. Law is well settled that the appeal court normally does not deal with an issue which was not raised and discussed by the court who passed the impugned order. We would desist from examining the validity of the policy decision. Therefore, it goes without saying that it will be open to the appellant to challenge the validity of the policy decision in a duly- constituted proceeding. 5. In the result, we agree with the order of the learned Company Judge. The appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be not order as to costs. B.P. Verma, J. I agree Patna High Court, Patna. Dated 21st September,2010 Vinay/N.A.F.R. ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)