SOCIETE GENERAL Vs. DAEWOO MOTORS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application filed on behalf of the employees of the Company -in-liquidation for ad hoc payment of their wages as an interim relief pending consideration of various issues involved in the main matter.

(2.) The relevant facts appearing from the record and the submissions made during the course of hearing are that in some proceedings initiated by ICICI Bank before the DRT - III, Mumbai being (O.A. No. 162/2002) in the year 2002 for recovery of its money from the Company in liquidation its claim was decreed on 31-08-2004 and in execution proceedings by the Recovery Officer some property of the Company in liquidation was sold through private sale. As per the present Applicant, the property was sold in the year 2007 for a sum of Rs. 765/- crores and out of that amount a sum of Rs. 50 crores was earmarked by the Recovery Officer towards workers' claim. These facts are not in dispute.

(3.) The prayer made by the workers of the Company in liquidation for disbursement of the amount of Rs. 50 crores earmarked for them out of the sale consideration received from the sale of the property of the Company in liquidation has been opposed on behalf of M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company (INDIA) Ltd.('ARCIL' for short), which Company claims to have been assigned the rights of the creditors of the Company in liquidation including the ICICI Bank and consequently it also claims to have become entitled to receive the sale proceeds of the assets of the Company in liquidation. It has opposed this application of the workers, inter-alia, on the grounds that this Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain this kind of prayer of the workers in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank, 2000 4 SCC 406 according to which judgment it would be only the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai which can order any kind of release of money to workers and that too after the Official Liquidator attached to this Court has authoritatively and finally accepted the claim of the workers. Another ground raised by ARCIL in opposition to this application is that the sale of the property of the Company in liquidation itself has been challenged by the workers themselves and that challenge is pending consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and, therefore, they cannot ask for disbursement of any money out of the sale proceeds. The application has also been opposed on the ground that so far the Official Liquidator or the Committee appointed by this Court for settling the claims of the workers have not been able to give any final report and whatever report has already been submitted has been seriously challenged by the workers.