M/S.Enso Secutrack Limited., (In Liquidation) vs. The Chief Manager

Facts

M/s. Enso Secutrack Limited (in liquidation), formerly known as Tyche Peripheral Systems Limited, through its Official Liquidator, filed a Company Application seeking various directions. The application, filed under Section 457(1)(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, and Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, prayed for the appointment of a Registered Chartered Valuer to assess the value of the company's immovable property (Flat No. 121, 1st Floor, Amrutha Ville, Somajiguda, Hyderabad), movable assets as per inventory, and motor vehicles. The application also sought to fix the valuer's remuneration, direct the valuer to verify the title of the flat with the Sub-Registrar and other statutory bodies, permit the Official Liquidator to pay valuation fees and incidental expenses from the company's funds, and order the costs of the application to be borne by the company's assets. The Official Liquidator filed an affidavit in support of the application.

Held

The Court held that the appointment of a Registered Chartered Valuer was necessary for the proper valuation of the company's assets, including the immovable property, movable assets, and motor vehicles. The Court appointed Sri Pradeep Kaparthi as the Valuer and fixed his remuneration at Rs. 25,000/- (excluding GST). The Court further permitted the Official Liquidator to make the payment of the valuation fee and other incidental expenses from the funds of the Company-in-Liquidation, subject to recouping the same upon realization of assets. The Court also granted the other incidental prayers set out in the application, which included directing the valuer to verify the title of the flat with the Sub-Registrar and other statutory bodies. The Court ordered the application accordingly and stated that no costs would be awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should appoint a Registered Chartered Valuer to assess the immovable property, movable assets, and motor vehicles of the company in liquidation, and if so, from which panel or as deemed fit by the Court. 2. Whether the Court should fix the remuneration for the appointed valuer and permit the Official Liquidator to make payments for valuation fees and incidental expenses from the company's funds. 3. Whether the valuer should be directed to verify the title of the company's flat with the Sub-Registrar and other statutory bodies. Arguments for the Applicant (Official Liquidator): The Official Liquidator argued for the appointment of a valuer to ascertain the value of the company's assets, which is a necessary step in the liquidation process. They also sought permission to incur expenses related to the valuation and to have the valuer verify the title of the immovable property to ensure clear ownership. The Official Liquidator relied on the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to support the prayers made in the application. Arguments for the Respondent (Revenue/State): No specific arguments were recorded for the Respondent as this was a company application filed by the Official Liquidator seeking directions for asset valuation.