Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (4) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emit a sum of Rs. 85;000/-, being part of the sale proceeds to the Official Liquidator. The applicant has also sought for direction to respondent No. 4 to remit Rs. 1,70,000/- to the Official Liquidator. 2. Heard the learned counsel and perused the application papers. 3. The company known as M/s. Automac (Mysore) Pvt Limited was ordered to be wound up by this Court vide the order dated 27.02.1997 in Company Petition No. 70/1991. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the erstwhile Directors of the said Company-in-liquidation. The Company Petition No. 70/1991 was instituted before this Court on 02.08.1991. It is in that context, the applicant contends that the sale of the movables as made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 29.03.1996 is contrary to Se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mises, wherein the activity of the Company-in-liquidation was being conducted and since in that circumstances, the movables were taken out from the said premises, the same was immediately brought to sale as otherwise the condition would have further deteriorated and the sale made was also in the interest of the Company-in-liquidation. Further, out of the said amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- as evident, a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- has been paid to the secured creditor and the balance sum of Rs. 85,000/- has been paid to one of the employees Sri. P. Ravindra, who was working as a Manager prior to the closure of the company. It is also pointed out that the dues towards E.S.I and Provident Fund has also been paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, even after the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Company-in-liquidation had in fact been sold by the respondents during the period subsequent to filing of the winding up petition on 02.08.1991. This in fact is not in dispute. 6. In that view of the matter, the case put forth by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through their objection statement and the documents relied on require to be noticed in the peculiar facts of the instant case, to find out as to whether the prayer as made in the application requires to be granted. As noticed, the fact that the movables were sold for a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- on 29 03.1996 is not in dispute and also the fact that the company was ordered to be wound up on 27.02.1997 is also a matter of record. Though, a sum of Rs. 1.70,000/ has been settled by respondent N .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t Nos. 1 and 2 have also furnished a list of employees numbering 24 persons and 24 receipts drawn during the year 2005-06 is produced to indicate that the amounts outstanding to the employees has been paid vide the said receipts. The said aspect of the matter would indicate that even though the company was wound up on 27 02.1997, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have made certain payments on their personal account to the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and the former employees of the Company-in-liquidation. If this act of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of bearing the burden of paying the outstanding amounts in respect of the Company-in-liquidation from their personal funds even after the date of winding up order is kept in view, the manner in which t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... indicate that there is more than one secured creditor. Further the payments of the employees are shown to have been made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, the possibility of any other claims by employees or statutory claims cannot be ruled out. If in the event of there being any other claims, the entire amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- in any event cannot be appropriated by the respondent. No. 4 alone to the detriment of any other claims of the secured creditors or employees which would have to be considered on a pari passu basis and along with the fourth respondent who was one of the secured creditors. 11. However, since at present there is no other claims, in my view, there need not be a direction to the fourth respondent to refund the amoun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates