9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a considerable part of the plant, machinery, and equipment found at the site in 2003 when possession was taken over by the Official Liquidator (OL) has since gone missing. 2. The explanation for the missing items from the factory premises and who should be held responsible. 3. If Keshav Security Services (P) Limited (KSSPL) is held liable, the amount it should be asked to pay and whether its bills should be settled by the OL. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Missing Plant and Machinery The judgment establishes that the possession of the factory premises was taken by the OL on 4th December 2003. An inventory was taken at that time, and valuation reports from M/s. R.P. Gupta & Associates dated 23rd February 2004 and 27th April 2009 showed that many assets of International Ceramics Limited (ICL) found at the time of takeover in 2003 had gone missing. Subsequent reports by the OL and M/s. Chadha & Associates confirmed that even items noted in the earlier report had disappeared. This indicated that the pilfering of assets continued unabated while KSSPL was responsible for security. Despite KSSPL's denial, the reports unmistakably showed that a considerable part of the plant and machinery found at the site in 2003 had since gone missing. Issue 2: Responsibility for Missing Items The court held KSSPL responsible for the security of the assets, as the inventory at each stage was taken in KSSPL's presence. KSSPL failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the missing assets and never reported any theft to the police. The court found it surprising that KSSPL did not complain about missing equipment. The explanation that theft occurred at the instance of former directors before 2003 was contradicted by successive reports from M/s. R.P. Gupta & Associates, the OL, and M/s. Chadha & Associates. The security agency's main task was to prevent pilferage, and KSSPL's failure to do so was deemed a grave dereliction of duty and gross negligence. Issue 3: Liability and Payment Given the conclusion that KSSPL was grossly negligent, the court determined that the OL was not obligated to settle any of KSSPL's bills. The court directed KSSPL to pay Rs. 70 lakhs to the OL in the account of ICL, accounting for depreciation and incomplete items in 2003. This payment was to be made within eight weeks, failing which KSSPL would incur simple interest at 12% per annum for the delay. If KSSPL failed to comply, the OL was permitted to take further steps to recover the amount in accordance with the law. The application was disposed of with these directions.
|
