Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The objection filed on behalf of the Official Liquidator would indicate that the limit of Rs20,000/ adopted by the Official Liquidator to treat that extent only is Preferential is based on the notification dated 1, 02 1997 issw d in exercise of the po er irider sub sect i n (2) Ic Se lion 30 of th( Act Ttn e ekin n the mc eh if i1 iqi do tek p lily P nsof r he i n i o tend d n m t I I I of gratuity. In this regard, ft is stated that insofar as the Officers are concerned, the payment of Gratuity is administered by the Mysore Kirloskar Officers Gratuity Fund trust and insofar as the workmen it is the Mysore Kirloskar Employees Gratuity Fund Trusf Therefore to the extent of the said amount, it cannot be considered as the amount due from the company as workmen's dues as the company has already parted with the amount and therefore, it cannot be considered 'Preferential' payment It is in that context contended that the adjudication as made by the Official Liquidator is in accordance with law. The Official Liquidator has also placed reliance on the order dated 0809201 I passed by this Court in C A No 113/201 1 to justify their action In line with the contention which have been urged in the obje hon sratemc nt the I irned counsc I for the Official I iguidator md als t )ffi i. i q iid tor i putfor hei o iion htf p ii I0 Act provides for overriding preferential payments Subject to the same, Section 530 provides for preferential payments in priority to all other debts. The payments which receive priority have been enumerated in (lause (a) to (g) of sub section (1) of Section 530 Sub section (2) provides that th um to which priority is to bc given under Clause (b) of sub section (1) shall not, in the case of any one claimant exceed such sum as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. In exercise of that power under Section 530 (2), a notification is issued as hereunder Notification No C SR 80(F) dated 1 7"