9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Distribution of assets among secured creditors. 2. Deduction of fee payable to the Central Government under Rule 291 of the Company Court Rules, 1959. 3. Definition and applicability of 'fee' versus 'tax'. 4. Interpretation of 'realisation' under Rule 291(4) of the Company Court Rules, 1959. Detailed Analysis: 1. Distribution of Assets Among Secured Creditors: The Official Liquidator presented a report to the court regarding the winding-up proceedings of M/s. Titan Springs Ltd. This report was in the context of C.A. 38/98 and aimed to inform the court about the factual position concerning the sharing and distribution of the company's available assets among its secured creditors, namely M/s. Karnataka State Financial Corporation (K.S.F.C.), M/s. Karnataka State Industrial Investment Development Corporation (KSIIDC), and M/s. Canara Bank. The court had previously directed the Official Liquidator to call a joint meeting of all creditors to decide on the disposal of the company's assets and the distribution of the realized amount among the secured creditors. The Official Liquidator submitted a joint report based on the meeting held on 3-7-2002, which outlined the agreed manner of sharing the realization from the sale of the company's assets, subject to the court's approval. 2. Deduction of Fee Payable to the Central Government Under Rule 291: A significant issue raised was the deduction of the fee payable to the Central Government under Rule 291 of the Company Court Rules, 1959. M/s. KSIIDC objected to the deduction of this fee from the amounts payable to them, arguing that the Official Liquidator had not rendered any service to them, and hence, no fee should be levied. They contended that a fee should be commensurate with the service rendered, and in the absence of any service from the Official Liquidator, no fee should be charged. 3. Definition and Applicability of 'Fee' Versus 'Tax': The argument centered around the distinction between a 'fee' and a 'tax'. M/s. KSIIDC's counsel argued that a fee is for a specific service and should be proportional to the service rendered. In contrast, the Official Liquidator's counsel contended that the fee under Rule 291 is a statutory levy payable to the Central Government and is not a claim by the Official Liquidator. The fee is for the overall service of overseeing the liquidation proceedings, ensuring fair distribution among creditors, and preventing mismanagement of the company's affairs. 4. Interpretation of 'Realisation' Under Rule 291(4): The interpretation of the term 'realisation' in Rule 291(4) was another key issue. M/s. K.S.F.C.'s counsel argued that 'realisation' should imply an effort by the Official Liquidator, such as legal proceedings to recover assets. They contended that if the Official Liquidator did not take any active steps to realize the assets, no fee should be levied. Conversely, the Official Liquidator's counsel argued that 'realisation' should be understood broadly, encompassing all funds that come into the Official Liquidator's hands from the company's assets, regardless of whether active legal proceedings were involved. The fee is for the overall service provided during the liquidation process, including oversight and control over the sale proceedings conducted by secured creditors. Conclusion: The court held that the fee under Rule 291 of the Company Court Rules, 1959, is payable by the secured creditors as agreed in the joint report. The fee is a statutory levy for the overall service of overseeing the liquidation proceedings and ensuring fair distribution among creditors. The term 'realisation' in Rule 291(4) should be interpreted broadly, encompassing all funds received by the Official Liquidator from the company's assets, not just those recovered through active legal proceedings. The report of the Official Liquidator was accepted, and permission was granted to deduct the requisite amounts from the payments to the secured creditors for remittance to the Central Government.
|
