2009 (1) TMI 487 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Claim by Union of India for release of amount in priority over all other dues from the Official Liquidator. Interpretation of rights of Union of India to recover duty in a case of company liquidation. Priority of Government dues over secured creditors.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a claim made by the Union of India for the release of a significant amount in priority over all other dues from the Official Liquidator. The goods in question were imported by a company-in-liquidation in 1998, detained by the Customs Department for non-payment of duty, and later released by the Company Court in 2005. The Union of India contended that their claim should be given priority even in the case of winding up of the company. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, stating that the Customs Department did not have a statutory power to control the custody of goods under section 142 of the Customs Act.

The Union of India raised arguments that the Crown debt should have the first charge over the goods, and their claim should be settled on a priority basis outside the purview of section 529A of the Companies Act. The judgment referred to a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, which highlighted that Crown debts get priority only with a specific provision claiming 'first charge' over the property. Since there was no such provision in the Central Excise Act and Customs Act, the claim of secured creditors was deemed to prevail over Crown debts.

The Court, in alignment with the Full Bench decision and the Division Bench's ruling, held that the Union of India was not entitled to seek payment out of the sale proceeds on priority basis. The claim of the Government was to be considered at an appropriate time along with others under section 530 of the Companies Act. The judgment emphasized the precedence of secured creditors over Crown debts in the absence of specific statutory provisions claiming 'first charge,' thereby denying the Union of India's claim for priority in this case.