9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be considered by the liquidator. If the Petitioner-company is, in any manner, aggrieved by the opinion of the liquidator, it is free to challenge the same before the appropriate forum i.e., the NCLT and avail of its remedies in accordance with law. The question as to whether a PSU ought to be revived or not is a question of policy. In the opinion of this Court, just because there are dues which are liable to be paid by the PSU it cannot be said that each and every PSU which is fully controlled by the Government would have to be revived or that the Government ought to pay the dues of the PSU. The PSU would have its own independent existence. In a writ petition which is seeking recovery of amounts, the Court cannot direct the Union of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner is that it had participated in a tender for providing transport services. It was declared successful and it had rendered transport services to HPCL, which service was fully performed and the contract was discharged. However, dues to the tune of more than ₹ 6 crores were not paid by HPCL. Hence, the Petitioner wrote a letter in September, 2016 to the Union of India to intervene and sought a direction for payment of the said amount. In this letter, the Petitioner mentioned how a meeting had been held between the Petitioner and Additional Secretary, Ministry of Heavy Industries, in which HPCL assured the Petitioner that the outstanding amount would be paid quickly. On the basis of this assurance and in order to maintain a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 4,21,94,496/- (Four Crore Twenty-one Lac Ninety-Four Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-Six) (+) Earnest Money Deposit (EMD)/Security Deposits: - ₹ 23,00,000(Twenty-Three Lac) TOTAL: RS. 10,56,57,511/- (Ten Crore Fifty-Six Lac Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Eleven). 6. Ld. senior counsel Mr. Vivek Sibal, appearing for the Liquidator submits that after filing of the claims, the liquidator is now in the process of liquidating the assets of HPCL, which process has not yet been completed. It is submitted that HPCL does have substantial assets, however, its debts are much higher. 7. The Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following relief: It is therefore, most respectfully p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hindustan Antibiotics Limited Ors. was dismissed vide order dated 7th January, 2020. The third submission of Mr. Goel is that the Government of India ought to be directed to take a specific stand as to whether it wishes to revive the company. 9. In response, it is submitted by Mr. Sibal, ld. Sr. counsel, that the Petitioner-company, having already raised its claim before the Liquidator, in so far as the earnest money deposit of ₹ 23 lakhs is concerned, the same is being held in trust and would be dealt with in terms of Section 36 of the IBC. In so far as the remaining claims are concerned, the same would be processed in accordance with Section 53 of the IBC. He further submits that the security deposit having already been made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e creditors, in the priority and hierarchy contained in the IBC. 12. The Petitioner, by filing the present writ petition, is seeking an extraordinary remedy of recovery against the Union of India on the ground that HPCL is a PSU. Admittedly, the claims of the Petitioner have already been filed before the Liquidator. In so far as the security deposit is concerned, the question as to whether the said amount would have to be treated as one which is held in trust by the company is a question which would be considered by the liquidator. If the Petitioner-company is, in any manner, aggrieved by the opinion of the liquidator, it is free to challenge the same before the appropriate forum i.e., the NCLT and avail of its remedies in accordance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners has referred to a number of judgments including a recent judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Pawan Hans Limited Ors. -Vs- Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana Ors., reported in (2020) 13 SCC 506 , where a Government Company is seen not as an ordinary Company but as something different, with more responsibility where the Courts expect such a Company to be a model employer where there is fairness in the treatment of its workers, etc. There can never be a quarrel on this proposition. These are all accepted principles now. But as we have seen from the decisions given by the Hon ble Apex Court in the above two judgments, a Company has its separate identity after being incorporated as a Company under the Companies Act. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
