9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim disallowed by Official Liquidator, Compliance with rule 163 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, Entitlement to unpaid wages, Validity of settlement agreement, Binding nature of settlement, Payment of amount to the appellant. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the Official Liquidator's order disallowing a claim for unpaid wages. The appellant, a former employee, claimed Rs. 1,49,664 as unpaid wages from 1-7-1997 to 10-4-2001. The Official Liquidator allowed a payment of Rs. 23,509 but did not provide reasons for disallowing the rest of the claim. 2. The learned amicus curiae highlighted that the Official Liquidator did not comply with rule 163 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which mandates stating grounds for rejecting claims. The absence of reasons for rejection was noted. The Official Liquidator's affidavit stated the appellant was not entitled to salary beyond 9-7-1997, despite the claim period extending to 10-4-2001. 3. The appellant argued for entitlement based on previous court decisions. The Official Liquidator relied on a settlement agreement dated 9-4-2001, which deemed employees relieved from services on 9-7-1997. The settlement, unchallenged, bound all parties, including the appellant who received Rs. 11,397 as final settlement. 4. The settlement, reflecting the financial struggles of the company, was upheld as valid and binding. The appellant's receipt of Rs. 11,397 under the settlement was acknowledged. The Official Liquidator's payment of Rs. 23,509 was deemed separate from the appeal's subject matter and related to old dues reflected in the ex-directors' statement of affairs. 5. The judgment dismissed the appeal, directing the order copy to be served on the appellant in jail. The fees under the Legal Aid Scheme were to be paid to the learned advocate. The dismissal upheld the validity and binding nature of the settlement agreement, concluding the legal proceedings in the case.
|
