Karnataka High Court
Sir H B Lingaraju vs The Mysore Acetate & Chemicals Co. Ltd. on 7 February, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
C.A.NO.63 OF 2013
IN
C.O.P.NO.45 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
SIR H.B.LINGARAJU
S/O H.N.BORAIAH
BEHIND KAKA SHOP
ACETATE TOWN POST
MANDAY- 571 404. ...APPLICANT
(BY:SMT.HEMALATHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SRIDHAR C.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MYSORE ACETATE & CHEMICALS CO. LTD.,
SINCE IT IS UNDER LIQUIDATION
REP BY. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CORPORATE BHAVAN
NO.26/27, 12TH FLOOR
RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.S.MAHADEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR O.L.)
THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 164 R/W
6 & 9 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES 1959 PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RE-CONSIDER THE
CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH INTEREST BASED
ON THE WORK SHEET PRODUCED BEFORE THE OFFICIAL
2
LIQUIDATOR AND TO DISBURSE THE SAME AS
EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS C.A COMING FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Smt.Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri C.K.Sridhar for the applicant and Sri K.S.Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator and also Sri S.Ramakant, Official Liquidator, who is present before the Court.
2. This application is filed by an ex-employee of the Company (in liquidation) under Rule 164 read with Rules 6 and 9 of the company (Court) Rules, 1959, questioning the adjudication made by the Official Liquidator in respect of the claim made by the applicant before the Official Liquidator.
3. This Court, by order dated 7.11.2003 ordered for respondent Company being wound up. Applicant herein claims to be an ex-employee of the 3 respondent Company and is said to have got relieved from the Company under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Since the Company declared lay-off due to continuous loss, the applicant made a claim for `2,26,407/- before the Official Liquidator. On claims being invited due from the Company (in liquidation), claim was submitted by applicant and it was contended that in the calculation of payment of Voluntary Retirement amount and other payments, there was discrepancy and Company (in liquidation) had not taken any steps to pay the Dearness Allowance, revised pay- scale, lay-off compensation, family relief fund and leave encashment to which the applicant was entitled to under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and as such, he sought for payment.
4. Undisputedly, the Official Liquidator has adjudicated the said claim, and has admitted the amount of `18,930/- and rejected the claim for 4 `2,07,477/- by issuing notice to the applicant, dated 6.10.2010 (Annexure-A).
5. By this application, the order of adjudication made by the Official Liquidator is challenged under Rule 164 of the Company (Court) Rules and the applicant is seeking for a direction to the Official Liquidator to re-consider the claim of the applicant based on the worksheet produced before the Official Liquidator and to disburse the differential amount, viz., `2,07,477/-.
6. The order of adjudication made by the Official Liquidator does not indicate or disclose as to whether the work sheet produced by the applicant came to be considered while adjudicating the claim of the applicant. On this short ground notice dated 6.10.2010 is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator would submit that the claim would be re-adjudicated and in the event of any further or fresh 5 material is placed by the applicant, the same would be also taken into consideration by the Official Liquidator.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met, if the notice dated 6.10.2010 is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Official Liquidator for adjudication of the claim of the applicant afresh. Official Liquidator shall examine the claim of the applicant by taking into consideration the entire material placed by the applicant including the work sheet, which is said to disclose the amounts to which the applicant is entitled for. Hence, following order is passed:-
i) C.A.63/13 is hereby allowed.
ii) Order dated 6.10.2010 (Annexure-A) is hereby set aside.
iii) Applicant is permitted to produce fresh documents, if any, before the Official Liquidator to substantiate his claim within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, Official Liquidator shall adjudicate 6 the claim of the applicant afresh by taking into consideration the documents available before him and also the work sheet said to have been produced by the applicant at earlier point of time and fresh documents, if any produced, and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR