CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJKAMAL RAMAVTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 is directed against the common oral order dated 7.7.2009 in Company Application No.141 of 2006 with Company Application No.59 of 2008 passed by learned company Judge of this Court. THE Company Application No.141 of 2006 was preferred by respondent No.1 Rajkamal Ramvatar, who was one of the members of the sale committee to direct the Official Liquidator ('OL', for short) to pay the amount of workers' dues proportionately as per the ratio determined earlier in the said proceedings. Company Application No.59 of 2008 was preferred by the appellant ? Central Bank of India in capacity as secured creditor, directing the OL to pay the amount of expenses to the bank for securing the properties of the company, being the amount towards winding up expenses. Both the petitions came to be disposed of by the common oral order whereby so far as Company Application No.141 of 2006 preferred by the appellant ? bank was concerned, it was directed that the OL shall reimburse at the initial stage the amount of Rs.10,47,369/- to the appellant ? Central Bank of India towards security charges from 4.3.1998 to 18.2.2006 directly paid by the bank to the security agency and Rs.2,38,172.73 which was claimed by the appellant ? bank to the OL and the OL was directed to disburse the said amount to the appellant bank, upon the appellant ? bank supplying the letter from the office of the OL for disbursement to the OL and subject to verification by the OL of having received said amount or paid the amount either to the OL or on behalf of the OL by the bank. Accordingly, the Company Application No.59 of 2008 preferred by the appellant ? company came to be disposed of by the learned company Judge.

(2.) HOWEVER, so far the Company Application No.141 of 2006 preferred by the respondent No.1 in capacity as one of the members of sale committee is concerned, in the impugned order it was directed that out of available fund of Rs.1.51 Crore, since the OL has to retain Rs.5 Lacs and also to disburse the amount of Rs.13,42,000/-, the fund available with the OL approximately would be Rs.1,19,60,000/- and out of which the OL shall disburse the amount of Rs.1,19,50,000/- to the workers towards workers' claim as per the percentage of ratio submitted in the report of the OL dated 15.9.2009. It was further observed in the impugned order that the OL has suggested the ratio for disbursement at 78.73% for the workers' claim and 21.27% for the secured creditor viz. the appellant ? Central Bank of India. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of disbursement of the sum of Rs.1,19,50,000/- towards the workers' claim, the appellant ? Central Bank of India preferred this appeal.

(3.) MS.Nisha M.Thakore, learned advocate representing the newly added respondents No.3 to 11 submitted that the newly added respondents No.3 to 11 were workers in Shri Vivekanand Mills (now in liquidation) but, these respondents have not received their legitimate dues. It is submitted that however, she has no objection whatsoever against the amount being paid to the workmen so also the ratio fixed by the OL and accepted by the learned company Judge in the impugned order, but these respondents apprehend that the respondent No.1 Rajkamal Ramavtar by making misstatement of facts has suppressed the actual number of workers and it is apprehended that the respondent No.1 fraudulently incorporated the names of non-existent and fictitious persons in order to misappropriate the funds of the workers. MS.Thakore, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 11 submitted that, therefore, the presence of these respondents in this matter appear to be necessary and, therefore, they preferred OJCA No.21 of 2010 for joining them in this appeal as co-respondents and vide order dated 10.2.2010 passed by this Court, they came to be impleaded as co-respondents. However, it is submitted that these respondents are in the process of filing company application for seeking direction of this Court by holding inquiry with regard to the discrepancy in number of workers and other irregularities committed by the respondent No.1 herein.