Calcutta High Court
Re: Angelo Brothers (In Liqn.) vs Re: Nawdeep Singh on 24 June, 2015
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
ORDER SHEET
CA 401 of 2013
With
CP 90 of 1983
CA 342 of 1998
CA 431 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Original Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
RE: ANGELO BROTHERS (IN LIQN.)
Versus
RE: NAWDEEP SINGH
-VS-
THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, AND ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Date : 24th June, 2015.
Appearance:
Mr.Deepak Khosla, Adv.
..for the Applicant.
Mr.V.Raja Rao, Adv.
Mr.Huzefa, Adv.
Mr.A.Rao, Adv.
..for Punjab & Sind Bank
Mr.Y.P.Das, Adv.
Miss. D. Dutta, Adv.
...representing Canara Bank,
Circle Office, Kolkata.
Mr.S.C. Prasad, Advocate.
..for the Official Liquidator.
The Court:-In course of hearing today, Mr.S.C. Prasad,
learned Advocate appearing for the Official Liquidator submitted
that altogether five claims were lodged in respect of the company,
the claimants being 589 individuals claiming to be the workers of
the company, the Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Jhalda
Municipality and a Firm by the name of Calcutta Wax Traders. There
is an additional claim of one Premankur Ghosal, 55/27/16, Purba
2
Sinthi Road, Dumdum, Calcutta - 700030, on account of salary and
allowances, interest and under certain other heads for a sum of
Rs.5,10,836.56. The said claim appears to have been received by
the Official Liquidator on 23rd July, 1997. This claim, however,
was not reflected in the affidavit filed by the Official
Liquidator.
Learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the Punjab and
Sind Bank and Canara Bank was represented by Mr.Y.P.Das, a Law
Officer of that Bank attached to the Circle Office, Kolkata. As
regards the claim of the individuals claiming to be workmen of the
company is concerned, Mr. Prasad submitted that their claim is to
the tune of Rs.36,71,02,156/-. The claim of the Provident Fund
Organization is to the tune of Rs.15,41,014/- lodged in the year
2005. The Provident Fund Organization is represented before this
Court today by Mr.Hamij Uddin Sardar, Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner (Legal), Sub-Regional Office, Barrackpore.
Mr.Das, appearing for Canara Bank, submitted that his bank
has not filed any claim in this proceeding. But two suits were
instituted by the bank against the company before this Court. The
first suit was registered as Suit No.106 of 1992 (Canara Bank
versus The Official Liquidator and Ors.) relating to claim of
Rs.73,38,637.95p. and this suit, which was filed before this Court
has subsequently been transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I
and has been renumbered as TA No.10 of 2004. The other suit was
3
registered as Suit No.444 of 1993 [Canara Bank versus Angelo
Brother Ltd. (In Liquidation) & Ors.] claiming a sum of
Rs.1,77,35,956.01p., and this suit has also been transferred from
the High Court and is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-
2, having been renumbered as TA No.5 of 2004. Learned Counsel
appearing for the Punjab and Sind Bank wants to take instruction
on the present status of his clients' claim against the company
and the forum in which such claim was lodged.
So far as claims of individual workmen are concerned, the
learned Advocate for the Official Liquidator has brought to my
notice a statement comprised in two parts, which according to him
form part of their claim. In the first part, there are names of 64
employees referred to as office staff and under the Column head
"year of service", varied length of their services, ranging from
20 to 30 years have been disclosed. The second part of the
statement contains the names of 669 individuals, who appear to
have been identified on the basis of ticket numbers and addresses.
But in their cases, the year of joining or the length of service
has not been disclosed.
Mr.Sardar representing the Provident Fund Organization
submitted that so far as the said organization is concerned, they
have lodged their claim with the Official Liquidator on 12th April,
2005 for a sum of Rs.15,41,014/- for the period between November,
1991 and July, 1996 under the heads 'Provident Fund and Damages'.
4
No one appears on behalf of the firm, Calcutta Wax Traders.
From the affidavit of the Official Liquidator affirmed on 25th
February, 2015, I find that their claim is for a sum of
Rs.1,99,449/- and in that regard, again it appears from the said
affidavit of the Official Liquidator that an affidavit dated 6th
May, 1997 in support of the debt was filed. The affidavit in
support of the debt was not shown to me at the time of hearing.
Mr. Prasad, however, referred to a letter issued by Dhiman Chandra
Biswas, Advocate, dated 19th December, 1996 representing Calcutta
Traders in which demand was made to the company directly for a sum
of Rs.1,99,449/- and that claim relates to supply of coal for the
period between 29th March,1994 and 2nd May, 1994. In respect of the
claim of Jhalda Municipality, Mr.Prasad drew my attention to a
letter issued by the Chairman of the Municipality on 25th June,
1997 raising a claim with the Official Liquidator on account of
property tax for a sum of Rs.47,348.25.
In course of his submissions, Mr.Khosla also brought to
my notice the copy of an order passed on 26th April, 1991 in the
same proceeding by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in which
the submissions of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Provident Fund Commissioner has been recorded to the effect that
the erstwhile committee of management had failed and neglected to
pay Rs.19 lakhs approximately towards Provident Fund dues although
the same had been collected from the workmen, as it appears from
5
recordal of his submissions. In the same order, liberty was
granted to the Provident Fund Commissioner to take such step as he
was entitled to under the Act against the members of the erstwhile
committee of the management. No subsequent order has been brought
to my notice by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties
which supersedes or modifies this part of the order.
In these circumstances, the Provident Fund Authorities are
directed to apprise this Court what steps they have taken in
pursuance of liberty granted by this Court in the order passed on
26.04.1991for recovery of dues from the erstwhile committee of management. In the same order, it has also been recorded that Mr.Samarjit Deb, learned Counsel appeared before the Court on behalf of the Canara Bank on that date, and had submitted that the bank has claimed against the committee of the management a sum of Rs.56 lakhs on the personal guarantee of one Mr.P.K. Singhania. Mr.Das, who is representing Canara Bank, shall apprise this Court what step the bank had taken in pursuance of such claim against the committee of management.
Matter is heard and adjourned till 25th June, 2015.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) nm/dg2