Calcutta High Court
Union Of India vs Bharat Process & Mechanical on 3 March, 2020
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen, Saugata Bhattacharyya
ACO No.24 of 2019
APO No.196 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
UNION OF INDIA
-Versus-
BHARAT PROCESS & MECHANICAL
ENGINEERS LTD. (IN LIQN.) & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 3rd March, 2020.
Appearance:
Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. N.L. Singhania, Adv.
Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Lopita Banerji, Adv.
Ms. Shyantee Datta, Adv.
...for the respondent No.2.
Mr. Jyoti Prakash Patnaik, Adv.
...for the respondent no. 5.
Mr. N. Krishnamurti, ...the official liquidator.
The Court : By consent of the parties the appeal and the applications are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India, Ministry of Heavy Industry and Public Enterprises against an order dated 9th August, 2019 passed by Justice I.P. Mukerji, in connection with winding-up of Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Ltd. (in liquidation). The said company was referred to 2 BIFR and during the course of hearing, BIFR recommended winding up of the said company. The matter has since been placed before the leaned Single Judge for final order of winding up. During the pendency of the said reference, it appears that one TPG Equity Management Pvt. Ltd. claiming to be a secured creditor filed an application for revival of the said company. During the course of hearing, the leaned Single Judge felt that since it relates to the policy matter of the Central Government and it involves major minerals and natural resources, a high power committee should be constituted with representation from the Central Government, Odisha Government and OMDC of not more than three members and representing the interest of all the three stake holders to take an informed decision with regard to renewal of the lease within three months from the date of communication of the order. TPG Equity Management Pvt. Ltd. which was treated to be one of the secured creditors having huge stake, was given an opportunity of hearing before any decision is taken with regard to renewal of the subject lease.
It is not disputed at the bar that the company now in liquidation was a Government company of which the entire holding was owned and controlled by the Central Government. The company, while in operation had three mining leases which had expired in the meantime. On 27th July 2004 the company was wound up. It may be because of the winding up of the said company the mining leases may not have been renewed. However, one thing that cannot be 3 disregarded is the huge liability of the said company which involves a large number of workers, and TPG Equity and Management Pvt. Ltd., claiming to be the only secured creditor by reason of assignment of debt in its favour by the UCO Bank.
What cannot be lost sight of is a call to be taken with regard to the future of the employees who became jobless and were not paid their lawful dues for almost 24 years. It appears from the report filed by the official liquidator that the claim of 57 workmen for a sum of Rs.3,13,11,932/- settled at Rs.2,88,56,087/- has not been paid save and except a sum of Rs.17,91,136/-. Besides the aforesaid, the Regional Provident Fund Organisation has a claim of Rs.64,04,291/-. It is in the interest of all that these claims are paid as expeditiously as possible. The three authorities named in the order under challenge cannot shrug off their responsibilities in taking a decision in the matter. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of all relevant aspects, had directed the formation of such committee with a direction upon such committee to take a decision as the renewal of lease. The said decision would be helpful for the learned Single Judge to take a decision in the application filed by TPG Equity Management Pvt. Ltd. for revival of the said company. The fate of the scheme application is largely dependent upon a decision being taken by the high power committee as directed by the learned Single Judge.
In view of the fact that the learned Single Judge is in seisin over the application for revival of the company (in 4 liquidation), we refrain from making any observation with regard to proposed scheme and we leave it entirely to the learned Single Judge to decide the said application upon consideration of the report to be filed by the high power committee within eight weeks from date. We direct the Central Government, Odisha Government and OMDC to nominate their representative as members of the high power committee within two weeks from date. The High Power Committee shall decide the matter within the aforesaid period stipulated in this order in accordance with the directions of the learned Single judge.
The impugned order stands modified to the aforesaid extent.
The affidavit filed by the official liquidator is kept with the records. This affidavit may be placed before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the scheme application.
The appeal and the application accordingly stand disposed of.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s.