Gujarat High Court
Official Liquidator Of Various ... vs Respondent(S) on 23 February, 2015
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
O/OLR/118/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT NO. 118 of 2013
================================================================
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF VARIOUS COMPANIES IN
LIQUIDATION....Applicant(s)
Versus
.....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURANG H BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date : 23/02/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. The Official Liquidator has submitted this report seeking permission to appoint advocates as mentioned in the report by adopting the same terms and conditions, duties and obligations as per the order dated 28.1.2013 passed in OLR No.106 of 2012. The Official Liquidator further seeks a decision as regards the fee structure of the advocates as mentioned in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the report and also seeks permission to incur such expenses from the common pool account maintained by the office of the Official Liquidator and permission to avail services of the advocates to be approved by this court from the date of the order or any other date as may be fixed by this court.
2. Subsequently, the Official Liquidator has submitted a Page 1 of 5 O/OLR/118/2013 ORDER further report dated 13.11.2014 stating that during the course of hearing of the matter, the court had orally directed to collect the fee structure from the advocates intending to be empanelled for various courts and tribunals. The Official Liquidator, accordingly, has sent letters to 12 advocates who had applied for empanelment as advocates, to attend the meeting scheduled on 8.4.2014 for deciding the fee structure for appearing before various courts and tribunals. In the meeting held on 8.4.2014, eight advocates had remained present. The Official Liquidator had briefed the advocates about the directions of this court and asked them to submit the fee structure as soon as possible. Subsequently, the Official Liquidator has received letters from ten advocates quoting the fee structure. The applications from four advocates were received along with fee structure after the prescribed date. It is further stated in the report that after scrutinising the applications of the advocates as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the report, it was found that the advocates mentioned in the table below deserve to be selected for initial period of six months and thereafter, their services could be continued after reviewing their performance and after filing report before this court in the matter.
Sr. Advocate Court / Reason of Proposed
No. Tribunal selection fee
for which
selected
1 Ms. Barsha DRT/DRAT, Consistent better Rs.15,000/-
Parulkar Mumbai performance as per month
conveyed by as
Official retainership
Liquidator,
Mumbai
2 Sh. Ankil DRT/DRAT, Having worked Rs.8,500/-
Page 2 of 5
O/OLR/118/2013 ORDER
Anandraj Ahmedabad in association per month
Shah with Chartered as
Accountants retainership
firm, he is
having
experience in
company law
matter and also
done LLM from
UK.
3 Sh. Manyak Railway Most Rs.7,000/-
L. Acharya Tribunal experienced (32 per month
years of as
experience) retainership
advocate among
the candidates
applied for
empanelment as
advocate for
Railway Tribunal
4 Sh. Kiran Metropolitan Working with Rs.7,000/-
Sharma Magistrate Office of Official per month
Court Liquidator since as
many years and retainership
his performance
is good and
satisfactory.
Revision of fee
is suggested
5 Sh. Mahesh City Civil Working with Rs.9,500/-
Ramanlal Court & Office of Official per month
Shah Small Liquidator since as
Causes many years and retainership
Court his performance
is good and
satisfactory.
Revision of fee
is suggested.
3. In paragraph 6 of the report, the approximate number of cases pending before the various courts/tribunals have been Page 3 of 5 O/OLR/118/2013 ORDER stated as under :-
Sr. Court/ Appx. number New filing No. Tribunal of cases pending 1 DRT/DRAT, Mumbai 30 cases 5-10 cases per year 2 DRT, Ahmedabad 285 cases Not ascertainable 3 Industrial Tribunal & 250-300 cases Labour Court ____''____ 4 Subordinate Courts & Matter comes ____''____ Tribunals at casually Ahmedabad 5 Gujarat Revenue Matter comes ____''____ Tribunal casually 6 Metropolitan 350-500 cases Magistrate Court (regarding ____''____ recovery of dues of Companies in liquidation 7 Railway Tribunal 300 cases (of 01 Company i.e. ____''____ GSIC regarding recovery of dues of Companies in liquidation)
4. Since the number of cases pending before the City Civil Court and the Small Causes Court was not ascertainable from the report, this court had called upon the Official Liquidator to produce details in that regard. Pursuant thereto, the Official Liquidator has placed on record a communication dated 9.2.2015 of Mahesh Ramanlal Shah, advocate stating that at present 70 cases are pending in the City Civil Court at Page 4 of 5 O/OLR/118/2013 ORDER Ahmedabad and 15 cases are pending at the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. In all, about 85 cases are pending in both the courts.
5. Having perused the Official Liquidator's report and considering the number of cases pending before different tribunals/courts, the court is of the view that the learned advocates as selected by the office of the Official Liquidator as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the further report are required to be empanelled. The fee structure proposed in the report, appears to be reasonable and hence, deserves to be sanctioned.
6. In the aforesaid premises, the advocates mentioned in paragraph 8 of the further report dated 13.11.2014 submitted by the Official Liquidator shall be empanelled. The fee structure as proposed therein is hereby sanctioned. The report stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) zgs Page 5 of 5