9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dues of ₹ 2,87,675/- and ₹ 22,62,182/- have been rightly rejected under Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 being Government dues which shall be paid only after payment of workman and secured creditors - the claim for port dues cannot be admitted and if would have been admitted would result in disturbing the priority mechanism provided as per the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The report submitted by the official liquidator before this Court being OLR No. 141 of 2018 allowing the claims made by the applicant partly and rejecting the part of the claims shows no infirmity and is based on various orders passed by this Court from time to time. The claims which were not admissible as liquidation expenses have been rightly rejected by the official liquidator. Application dismissed. - COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 107 OF 2019 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 756 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2020 - R.D. DHANUKA, J. Ms. Aneesha Cheema along with Ms. Sakshi Bhalla i/by Mr. Charles De Souza for the Applicant. Mr. Aditya Pimple for the Official Liquidator. Mr. Mahendra Aithe, Company Prosecutor for Official Liquidator present. JUDGMENT : By this Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facilitate the sale of the same. 5. By an order dated 25th January, 2018 in Company Application No. 170 of 2018, the applicant agreed to appoint a manning agency to man and maintain Tugs Gal Beaufort Sea and Gal Ross Sea and bear expenses in relation thereto. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant had agreed to incur such expenses so as to protect the tugs and facilitate the sale of the tugs. 6. By an order dated 1st March, 2018, this Court recorded that all charges payable for the vessels including the port charges upto date shall be to the official liquidator s account, to be paid from out of the sale proceeds coming into the hands of the liquidator in pursuance of the said order. This Court also clarified that all claims against the sale proceeds of the vessels including maritime liens and maritime claims shall be considered by the official liquidator in accordance with the applicable law of priority of claims. It is further provided that the charges incurred by the applicant towards sale of the suit vessel including the advertisement charges shall be paid by the official liquidator from out of the sale proceeds in consultation with the applicant including th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 141 of 2018. The applicant filed this Company Application inter-alia for recovery of the balance amount which was rejected by the official liquidator. 10. Ms. Aneesha Cheema, learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the various orders passed by this Court which are annexed to the Company Application and would submit that the claims which are rejected by the official liquidator were arising out of the expenses incurred by the applicant towards travelling, lodging, management charges, port charges, salaries and supply and provisioning of food aboard the vessels/tugs of the respondents which were mortgaged to the applicant. The official liquidator has not recorded any reasons for rejecting these claim. Some of the claims are rejected on the ground that the official liquidator took possession of the vessels/tugs of the respondent mortgaged to the applicant prior to the actual handing over of those vessels/tugs. She submits that the official liquidator has not rejected the claims made by the applicant on the ground that expenses were not supported by relevant documents or were exorbitant or unjustified. Learned counsel invited my attention to the particulars of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not have rejected the claim for reimbursement of those expenses and more particularly incurred for travelling and lodging. If the applicant would not have incurred such expenses, the vessels/tugs of the respondents mortgaged in favour of the applicant would not have been sea worthy and could have sunk. In such an event, no recoveries would have been made from the sale of those vessels/tugs. Only because of the efforts taken by the applicant and incurring such expenses, the official liquidator could realize a substantial amount upon sale of those vessels/tugs. 14. Mr. Aditya Pimple, learned counsel for the official liquidator on the other hand invited my attention to the orders passed by this Court from time to time in various Company Applications filed by the applicant annexed to the Company Application. He also invited my attention to various averments made by the official liquidator in OLR No. 141 of 2018. He submits that by an order dated 28th March, 2018, this Court had confirmed the sale of various vessels/tugs. The official liquidator had received a claim of affidavit from the petitioner Exim bank for seeking reimbursement of expenses for an amount of ₹ 2,33,75, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the said vessel on 4th January, 2018 and the sale of the said vessel had been confirmed by this Court on 4th April, 2018. Learned counsel submits that the management cost between that period would be treated as Liquidation expenses amounting to ₹ 26,27,554/-. He relied upon various reasons recorded by the official liquidator while rejecting the claims made by the applicant in the said Official Liquidator s Report. 18. It is submitted by the learned counsel that out of the claim of ₹ 19,70,231/- made by the applicant towards expenses incurred from sale of vessel i.e. MT Polaris, the official liquidator has already admitted an amount of ₹ 14,39,296/- in part being the charges of valuation, publication and manning charges and has rejected the balance amount of ₹ 5,30,935/-. He relied upon paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order dated 25th January, 2018 passed by this Court and would submit that this Court had recorded a statement made by the applicant that though technically there was a ongoing charter for the said vessel MT Polaris which was operative till about June 2018, for all practical purposes, the said vessel/tug stood abandoned at the port of Kaki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor as liquidation expenses. In respect of such expenses, applicant may be considered as an unsecured creditor. Statement is accepted. 21. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the official liquidator that the official liquidator will not be able to admit the travelling, lodging and food expenses of ₹ 1,56,093/- manning expenses of ₹ 30,47,751/-, salary expenses of ₹ 2,68,927/- and port dues of ₹ 22,62,182/- incurred by the applicant if any since these expenses were neither approved by this Court nor were conveyed to the official liquidator prior to incurring such expenses and thus would not be considered as liquidation expenses. 22. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the salary remittance of ₹ 2,68,927/- would fall under Sections 529A or 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 depending upon the nature of work and thus has been rightly rejected by the official liquidator. It is submitted that the order passed by this Court on 28th November, 2018 allowing the Official Liquidator s Report No. 141 of 2018 has not been impugned by the applicant. This Court thus shall not interfere with the order passed by the official liquidator in rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of the creditors of the respondent company. It was the case of the applicant that the applicant had incurred expenses amounting to ₹ 1,06,46,193/- for maintenance, up keep and sale of the vessels exclusively mortgaged to the applicant. By an order dated 25th January, 2018, this Court recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the vessel/tugs MT Plaris stands abandoned at the port of Kakinada and as a result the said vessel/tug had required to be taken possession by the official liquidator. The official liquidator made a submission that the expenses for enabling the official liquidator to take possession as also to man the ship after such possession must be borne by the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant gave no objection to bear such expenses for enabling official liquidator to take possession and also to man the ship after such possession was taken by the official liquidator. This Court accordingly directed the official liquidator to take possession of MT Polaris and made it clear that the costs for taking possession and thereafter to man the ship, shall be borne by the applicant. 26. By another order dated 14th February, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court directed that the said vessel is properly manned by the applicant. This Court made it clear that any expenses incurred by the applicant towards manning of the said vessel in the course of liquidation proceedings will be treated as liquidation expenses and would be disbursed to the applicant from out of the sale proceeds of the said vessel. 29. By an order dated 14th March, 2018 in Company Application filed by the applicant, this Court accepted the offer given by M/s. Pragati Marine Services Private Limited for purchase of the vessel M.T. Polaris. It was directed that the possession of the said vessel shall be handed over by the official liquidator to M/s. Pragati Marine Services Private Limited on as is where is basis. It was made clear that the earnest money deposited by M/s.Pragati Marine Services Private Limited with the applicant shall be adjusted towards the purchase of the said Tug MT Polaris. EMD received by the applicant shall be made over by them to official liquidator after adjusting their expenses including advertisement charges paid by them from out of the said amount. 30. By an order dated 28th March, 2018 passed by this Court in one of the Civil Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s travelling allowance and lodging expenses claimed by the applicant in sum of ₹ 79,374 is concerned, such charges are rightly rejected by the official liquidator as the same were to be borne by the applicant. 33. In so far as the management charges in respect of the vessel MT Polairs are concerned, the applicant had claimed a sum of ₹ 15,19,616/-. The official liquidator admitted the part of the claim in sum of ₹ 13,55,730/- against the said amount and rejected the claim of ₹ 1,63,886/- on the ground that official liquidator had taken possession on 6th February, 2018 and the sale had been confirmed on 14th March, 2018. The official liquidator thus admitted the claim only for that period. I do not find any infirmity with the rejection of the claim of ₹ 1,63,886/- and the same is in conformity with the order passed by this Court. 34. The official liquidator also admitted the claim of publication charges in respect of vessel MT Polaris. The official liquidator rejected the claim for port charges in the sum of ₹ 2,87,675/- on the ground that the said port charges were claimed for the period from 27th October, 2017 to 21st April, 2018 whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would fall under Section 529A or 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 depending upon the nature of work. The port dues of ₹ 2,87,675/- and ₹ 22,62,182/- have been rightly rejected under Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 being Government dues which shall be paid only after payment of workman and secured creditors. I am inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the official liquidator that the claim for port dues cannot be admitted and if would have been admitted would result in disturbing the priority mechanism provided as per the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. 38. In my view, the report submitted by the official liquidator before this Court being OLR No. 141 of 2018 allowing the claims made by the applicant partly and rejecting the part of the claims shows no infirmity and is based on various orders passed by this Court from time to time. The claims which were not admissible as liquidation expenses have been rightly rejected by the official liquidator. The said Official Liquidator s Report No. 141 of 2018 has been already accepted by this Court. No case is made out by the applicant for reimbursement of ₹ 62,65,898/- as claimed or oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
