1958 (7) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d as preferential claim. On the other hand, the official liquidator has reported that the entire amount cannot be treated as preferential claim. In his opinion, the sum of Rs. 87 only can be treated as preferential claim, and the Corporation has to be treated like any other creditor in respect of the balance of its claim, viz., Rs. 389. Section 230 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, gives a list of preferential payments. Section 94 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, reads: "There shall be deemed to be included among the debts which, ...under section 230 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (VII of 1913), are, in the distribution of the property of the insolvent or in the distribution of the assets of a company being wound up, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o mean the date of the appointment of a provisional liquidator where such an appointment is made. Under the provisions of clause ( d ) of sub-section (1) of section 530, therefore, all that the Employees' State Insurance Corporation is entitled to is the amount which was payable to it as contribution during the twelve months next before the date of appointment of the provisional liquidator. Learned counsel for the Corporation has drawn my attention to clause ( c ) of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897), which may be read as follows: "Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsurance Act and modifies that section only to the extent that contribution in respect of only twelve months next before the relevant date is made payable as a priority claim in a case of liquidation of a company under the Act of 1956. Beyond that, section 94 continues to stand in force without any modification. It cannot be assumed that the Legislature, though it made pointed reference to the Employees' State Insurance Act in clause ( d ), intended to leave it fully in force, though it clearly indicated its intention to modify the provisions of section 94 to the extent which I have already mentioned. The words used by the Legislature cannot be held to be nugatory. For the reasons given above, I am clearly of the opinion that the Corporat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X