9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application under rule 292 read with rules 9 and 308 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for summoning respondents to pay salaries and expenses. 2. Dispute over liability of secured creditors to contribute towards security and other expenses in a winding-up scenario. 3. Interpretation of proviso to section 529(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding obligations of secured creditors. 4. Application of legal precedents in determining the liability of secured creditors in a winding-up situation. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed an application under rule 292 read with rules 9 and 308 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking to summon the respondents to pay Rs. 12,763.85 per month towards salaries of watch and ward staff, along with Rs. 10,000 for preliminary expenses. The petitioner, appointed as the liquidator of a company ordered to be wound up, argued the necessity of security guards for the company's premises. The respondents, including secured creditors, opposed the petition on various grounds, questioning the applicability of the rules to the case. 2. The respondents, particularly secured financial institutions, contended that they were outside the purview of winding up and not liable to bear security or other expenses. They argued against the need for 13 security guards and disputed any obligation to fund salaries or expenses, citing significant losses suffered. The court examined the contentions and the legal provisions to determine the responsibilities of secured creditors in contributing towards the maintenance and safekeeping of their securities in a winding-up scenario. 3. The court referred to the proviso to section 529(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, which allows directions to secured creditors outside winding up to contribute to the preservation of their securities. The judgment emphasized that secured creditors benefiting from the security preservation by the liquidator should be liable to reimburse the actual preservation costs. The court rejected objections raised by respondents regarding the applicability of the law and upheld the petitioner's claim for contributions from secured creditors towards expenses. 4. Citing legal precedents such as the case of New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad Ltd. and Manjushri Textiles, the court established that secured creditors, despite being outside the winding-up proceedings, could be ordered to share the costs of preserving their security. The court differentiated the obligations of secured creditors in realizing their security outside winding up from their responsibilities to contribute to the preservation costs when benefiting from the security preservation efforts by the liquidator. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing all respondents, including secured creditors, to contribute proportionately towards the salaries of watch and ward staff and the preliminary expenses connected with the liquidation proceedings. The court mandated the calculation of liabilities by the petitioner and set timelines for payment, emphasizing the obligations of secured creditors to share running expenses for property preservation in a winding-up scenario.
|
