1 mss CA365 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2011 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 394 OF 2003 M/s. GARGI HUTTENES ALBERTUS PVT. LTD. .. PETITIONER AND M/s. USHA CUBALS PVT. LTD. APPLICANT Vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR of M/s. Chetan Foundries Ltd., known as M/s. MVR Foundries (in Liq.) & ANR... RESPONDENTS Mr. H. Toor i/b Sarwankar & Co. for the applicant CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 1/12/2011 P.C. This company application seeks an order and direction to the respondent No. 2 the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited to forthwith restore the electric power supply to the applicant and 2 mss CA365 particularly with regard to the property, the details of which are mentioned in prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the application. Prayer clause (b) is in the alternative and the same reads thus: “(b) In alternate to the prayer clause (a) above, that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and direct the Respondent No. 2, to forthwith grant two new HT electric connections, to the Applicant at Plot Nos. A/12 and A/26, situated in MIDC, Chincholi, Solapur and one new 50KW electric connection at Plot Nos. 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 69 situated in Solapur Industrial Co- operative Estate Society Ltd., Hotgi Road, Solapur, respectively, without insisting from the Applicant, payment of the past dues of the Company in liquidation, prior to the date of the confirmation of sale by this Hon’ble Court by an Order dated 9.9.2010; 2. The applicant claims title to the property of the company in liquidation. The applicant has stated in the affidavit-in-support that on 9th of September, 2010 a bid was submitted by the applicant for sale of the property of the company in liquidation. The applicant’s bid was highest 3 mss CA365 and, therefore, came to be accepted. The property was sold to the applicant for a sum of Rs.8,60,00,000/- which sum has been deposited with the official liquidator. 3. The sale has been confirmed. Thereafter liquidator has put the applicant in possession of the movable and immovable properties of the company in liquidation. Now, the applicant claims that 2nd respondent Electricity company is not supplying electricity to the applicant and the applicant is deprived of the same for no fault of the applicant. It is claimed that the dues of the company in liquidation are being claimed from the applicant without their being any sanctity thereto in law. The claim of the 2nd respondent is not tenable as against the applicant. 4. To my mind, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, if this company application is to be entertained it would necessitate this court considering the grievance of the applicant of being deprived of essential amenities such as electricity without recourse to law. The applicant is aggrieved by the actions of the 2nd respondent. The applicant on the basis of the title and ownership of the properties in question can approach the appropriate forum and seek such directions against the 2nd respondent to this application as are permissible in law. After the sale is concluded the company in liquidation is divested of its right, title and interest in the immovable property. It may not be possible for this court to entertain this 4 mss CA365 application and that too against the parties who were not before this court in the original proceedings. 5. For all these reasons and considering the highly disputed questions of facts, this application is not the remedy of the applicant and it is accordingly dismissed. 6. Needless to clarify that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the applicant and the reliefs based thereon. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)