2019 (8) TMI 533 - HC - Companies Law

Affidavit filed but no objection thereto - proof of debt filed - section 530 of Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT - Hearing is adjourned for the office to inform Court regarding whether there has been verification of claim lodged by SAIL. Statement made in paragraph 9 of its said affidavit-in-opposition, is its contention regarding the claim, thereby omitting reference to whether or not it was verified. List under same heading on 13th August, 2019.

Summary

Issues: Official Liquidator's objection to Steel Authority of India Limited's claim under section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956. Verification of claim by the Official Liquidator.

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Calcutta pertains to an ongoing dispute between the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and the Official Liquidator (O/L) regarding a claim made by SAIL under section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court noted that SAIL had filed an affidavit mentioning a previous application made in 2003 for execution, where it had submitted a Proof of Debt before the Official Liquidator. The O/L, in response, filed an affidavit-in-opposition acknowledging the claim but raising objections. The O/L referred to an order dated 23rd June, 2011, from a previous Execution Case involving SAIL, highlighting that the company was in liquidation and had limited funds available. The Court adjourned the hearing to allow the office to verify whether SAIL's claim had been properly lodged and verified by the O/L. The key contention raised by the O/L was that while SAIL's claim was acknowledged, there was no mention of its verification status in the affidavit-in-opposition. The case was listed for further proceedings on 13th August, 2019.

In this judgment, the Court primarily focused on the Official Liquidator's objection to Steel Authority of India Limited's claim under section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956. The O/L, through its affidavit-in-opposition, confirmed the existence of SAIL's claim but raised concerns regarding the verification process. The O/L emphasized the need for proper verification of the claim, especially in the context of the company being in liquidation and having limited funds available. The Court, therefore, directed the office to provide information on whether the claim lodged by SAIL had been duly verified by the O/L. This aspect of verifying the claim emerged as a crucial point of contention in the ongoing legal dispute between SAIL and the Official Liquidator.

Overall, the judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to legal procedures, particularly in cases involving claims under the Companies Act, 1956. The Court's decision to adjourn the hearing and seek verification of SAIL's claim underscored the significance of ensuring that all claims in the context of liquidation proceedings are properly examined and verified. The reference to a previous order involving SAIL further emphasized the complexities involved in dealing with claims during liquidation scenarios. The Court's meticulous approach in addressing the Official Liquidator's objections and emphasizing the verification process reflected a commitment to upholding legal principles and ensuring fair resolution of disputes within the framework of company law.