Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.2 That even otherwise ONGC cannot be equated with either Secured or Unsecured Creditors as the act of supplying gas was not of free volition but under orders of the Court.
9.3 Alternatively, it was pleaded that ONGC was entitled to be treated at par with a Secured Creditor and thus entitled to prorata share from the amount which was available for disbursement.
9.4 A further alternative contention was that right of ONGC was equivalent to the right conferred on the Workmen by virtue of provisions of Sections 529 & 529A of the Act and it be held that ONGC was entitled to paripassu distribution from the funds available with the Official Liquidator.

19. The Proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 529 of the Act clearly provides that the security of every Secured Creditor shall be deemed to be subject to a paripassu charge in favour of the Workmen to the extent of the Workmen's portion therein, and where a Secured Creditor instead of relinquishing its security opts to stay outside winding up and realise its security, to the extent of pari passu charge in favour of Workmen, provision of Section 529A of the Act would come into play. But before that it must not be lost sight of the fact that the object of the provision is that the legitimate dues of the workers must rank pari passu with those of the Secured Creditors and above, even the dues of the Government. The reason being the Workmen put in their labour and contribute to the growth of capital of the Company and thus become legitimately entitled to seeka share in the assets of the Company when the Company faces its closure and distribution of the assets is undertaken. Thus, even if ONGC seeks to get itself treated as a Secured Creditor it will have to accept paripassu charge in favour of the Workmen to the extent of Workmen's portion. In light of the clear unambiguous and unequivocal language of the provisions the contention on behalf of the ONGC that it has a superior right even above the Secured Creditor requires to be negatived. In absence of any statutory provision no such right is available to any creditor once there are specific statutory provisions and rules providing for determination of entitlement of persons from the estate of an insolvent person.

Thus, even if it is accepted that the bunch of orders made by the Apex Court are under Article 142 of the Constitution the said orders cannot be read as having ignored any substantive statutory provisions dealing with the subject i.e. winding up of a Company in liquidation and hence also the claim made by ONGC is required to be tested in light of the provisions of the Act read with provisions of The Provincial Insolvency Act,1920.

21. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 529 haste be read along with the provisions of Section 529A(1)(b) of the Act which state that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in the winding up of a Company - workmen's dues and debts due to Secured Creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause (c)of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 529 paripassu with such dues shall be paid in priority to all other debts. In other words where a Secured Creditor keeps himself outside the winding up proceedings as stated in the Proviso to Section 529(1) of the Act and seeks to recover his dues from realisation of the security, if he loses part of his security towards workmens dues, the Secured Creditor gets reimbursed to that extent as a Secured Creditor, with an overriding priority under Section 529-A(1)(b) of the Act. The amount taken away by the Liquidator from the realisation of the Security outside winding up by the Secured Creditor is permitted to be recovered or reimbursed outfox the monies that may be realised at the instance of other Creditors and for such reimbursement the Secured Creditor gets priority over all other creditors. Therefore, what the Secured Creditor loses towards Workmens portion out of his security can be claimed by Secured Creditor as a secured amount with priority over other creditors out of other realisations made by other creditors when the Company Court directs disbursement of the funds. But at the same time, position of the Secured Creditor does not improve from what it was originally and the priority of the Secured Creditor would not extend toits entire unrealized sums which might be in excess of the value or the price realised from his security.