2015 (3) TMI 655 - HC - Companies Law

Re-examination of claim by the official liquidator - Refund of amount to the official liquidator - Violation of principles of natural justice - Held that - We find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that re-examination thereof behind the back of the appellant by the Chartered Accountant and the filing of the application being C.A.No.01/2010 by the official liquidator behind the back of the appellant was contrary to the binding principles of natural justice as well as law. It is pointed out by Mr. Vikas Sharma, learned counsel that in terms of the order dated 18th of April, 2006 the appellant has been granted interest up to 1st of October, 1997 only and nothing beyond that. The computation of the interest is based on the hire purchase agreement as well as fixed deposit receipt of the company.The rates of interest and the computation stood verified by the official liquidator and the court in 2006. We are informed that there is an amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- lying credited with the office of the official liquidator. No further claims are pending. We are informed that Smt. Madhu Bala is a senior citizen who is residing in Meerut. Her husband is stated to be a pensioner who has been compelled to contest the case in Delhi since 2010 when notice in Co. Application No.01/2010 was issued. We are of the view that they have been unreasonably harassed. For all these reasons, the order dated 28th May, 2013 directing the appellant to refund the amount to the official liquidator with interest is hereby set aside and quashed. The appellant shall be entitled to costs which are quantified at ₹ 20,000/- which shall be sent by demand draft to the appellant at her address on the memo of parties within a period of four weeks from today.- Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order directing refund to official liquidator with interest.
2. Interpretation of interest rates under fixed deposit and hire purchase schemes.
3. Official liquidator's awareness of appellant's claim.
4. Scrutiny and approval of appellant's claim by official liquidator and Company Court.
5. Re-examination of appellant's claim without notice.
6. Disbursement of excess amount and subsequent demand for refund.
7. Jurisdiction of Company Court and official liquidator for re-verification of claims.
8. Calculation and payment of interest on appellant's claim.
9. Finality of previous order directing disbursement.
10. Harassment faced by appellant and costs awarded.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged an order directing her to refund an amount to the official liquidator with interest. The appellant and her husband had made investments in fixed deposit and hire purchase schemes. The interest rates under these schemes were disputed, with the appellant claiming entitlement to higher rates based on the agreements with the company.

2. The official liquidator was aware of the appellant's claim, which was submitted in accordance with the rules. The claim was scrutinized and approved by the official liquidator and the Company Court, leading to the disbursement of a certain amount to the appellant.

3. However, a re-examination of the claim was conducted without notice to the appellant, resulting in a demand for refund of an excess amount. The appellant contested this re-verification, arguing that it was done behind her back and violated principles of natural justice.

4. The appellant also raised objections regarding the calculation of interest and the jurisdiction of the Company Court and official liquidator for re-verifying claims that had already been finalized and disbursed. The objections were rejected by the lower court, leading to the appellant's appeal.

5. The High Court found merit in the appellant's contentions, setting aside the order directing refund and awarding costs to the appellant due to the harassment faced during the legal proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and principles of natural justice in such matters.