Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

B.I.F.R. vs M/S.Umi Special Steel Ltd.Regd on 2 September, 2016

Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Company Petition No. 02 of 2002
                                                ---
         B.I.F.R.                                              ---  ---- Petitioner
                                            Versus
         M/s UMI Special Steel Ltd.                      ---   ---  ---     Respondent
                                                ---
         CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
                                            ---
          For the Official Liquidator:Mr. H.K. Mehta, & Mrs. Manjusri Patra, Advocates
          For the Bank of India:     Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates
          For the UCO Bank:          Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate
          For the IDBI Bank Ltd:      Mr. Shivendra Kumar, Advocate
          For the EPFO:              Mrs. Banani Verma, Advocate
                                              ---
149/ 02.09.2016

Learned Official Liquidator has informed the Court that the process for disbursement of the workmen's dues in terms of the order dated 12.08.2016, is being undertaken. Some workmen have already appeared, cheques are also being prepared in their name and many other workmen are in the process of making their claims as they are spread over the country. He seeks three weeks more time to carry out the aforesaid exercise.

2. Learned counsel for the secured creditors submits that in terms of the same order, learned Official Liquidator is also required to disburse the admissible payments to the secured creditors from the corpus. Learned Official Liquidator and their counsel submit that the process would also be undertaken simultaneously.

3. Counsel for the EPFO seeks two weeks more time to offer her response to the I.A. No. 6718/2015 and I.A. No. 4675/2016. Counsel for the Secretary, U.M.I P.F Trust submits that request has also been made to the same applicant for transfer of funds to be administered through EPFO as Trust is more or less non-functional with Secretary and only one Trustee surviving. For that also, learned counsel for the the EPFO would also respond.

4. Accordingly, list the case after three weeks on 30.09.2016.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/