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 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Daljit Singh vs Pfc & Ors on 10 May, 2013

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

  HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH
                                 ****
                   CA-42-2011 in CP-172-1997 [O&M]
                     Date of Decision: 10.05.2013
                                 ****

Daljit Singh                                           . . . . Applicant

                                       VS.

PFC & Ors.                                             . . . . Respondents

                     ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
                     ****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                ****
Present:     Mr. Anil K Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant

             Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate with OL

             Mr. BS Walia, Advocate for PFC

             Ms. Sonal Dutta, Advocate

             Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for
             Mr. Barjesh Mittal, Advocate for Accountant Gen.Pb.
                                 ****
SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

(1) The ex-management of M/s Silver Screen Magnetic Diagnostics Ltd. has moved this application seeking permission of this Court to avail OTS scheme launched by PSIDC and PFC for subrogation of the name of M/s Cybest Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as secured creditor with first charge over the assets of the company including SCO-49, Phase-II, Mohali.

(2) M/s Silver Screen Magnetic Diagnostics Ltd. (in short, the Company) was ordered to be wound up by this Court vide order CA-42-2011 in CP-172-1997 -2- dated 08.12.2005 passed in CP No.172 of 1997. The Punjab Financial Corporation (PFC) as well as the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation (PSIDC) have pari passu first charge over the assets of the Company in terms of an agreement executed on 21.03.1994. Since the Company could not discharge its loan liability, the PFC took over the possession of its properties in exercise of the powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.

(3) Government of Punjab notified a One-Time Scheme vide notification dated 02.03.2009 (Annexure A7). Pursuant thereto, the ex-management of the company applied to the PFC and PSIDC for settlement under the OTS and made full and final payment through the strategic investor namely M/s Cybest Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The company is said to have paid Rs.2,48,57,000/- towards secured loan and Rs.1,90,37,000/- towards buy back of equity shares to PSIDC and an amount of Rs.1,08,57,860/- to PFC towards secured loan. A formal agreement dated 26.02.2013 has also been executed between PSIDC, ex-management of the company, the collaborator and the strategic investors namely M/s Cybest Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

(4) Upon notice, learned counsel for the PSIDC as well as PFC jointly state that the due amount as per the OTS has been paid by the company through strategic investor and they have no objection against subrogation of the name of M/s Cybest Solutions CA-42-2011 in CP-172-1997 -3- Pvt. Ltd. as secured creditor having first charge over the assets of the company including SCO-49, Phase-II, Mohali. It has also been agreed under the agreement dated 26.02.2013 that the original title deeds shall be forwarded to PFC who shall then hand over the same to the strategic investor namely M/s Cybest Solutions Pvt. Ltd. who stands substituted as 'secured creditor' in place of PFC and PSIDC. Ordered accordingly.

(5) It is however, made clear that since the agreement dated 26.02.2013 has been signed by Daljit Singh, ex-Managing Director of the company, on behalf of the company in liquidation, the issue of his competence to enter into the agreement on behalf of the company in liquidation is kept open.

(6) None of the interim orders shall be construed to mean that the Managing Director was ever authorized by the Company Court to enter into any agreement on behalf of the company. (7) The parties to the agreement shall abide by the rest of its terms and conditions.

(8)              Disposed of. Dasti.

10.05.2013
10.05.2013                                   (SURYA KANT)
vishal shonkar
                                                 Judge