9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifically made it clear that the prayer made by the appellant/Bank cannot be granted. It was further directed that the Official Liquidator shall settle all the amounts as sought in C.A.No.555 of 2018 and other consequential benefits. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Bank submitted that the Central Bank of India being the secured creditor of the Company in liquidation, viz., M/s.Mettur Textiles Industries Ltd., filed a suit on 12.12.1987 in O.S.No.60 of 1987 before the Sub Court, Salem for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,54,67,369.03 with interest at the rate of 19.5% per annum at quarterly rest. Later, the same was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore and re-numbered as T.A.No.1126 of 2002. The Tribunal by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Official Liquidator to pay a sum of Rs. 18,23,95,863/- to the appellant/Bank. The Official Liquidator also paid a sum of Rs. 15,50,00,000/- on 12.01.2013 and Rs. 2,73,95,863/- on 18.01.2013. 4. In the meantime, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai allowed the appellant's appeal in A.I.R.462 of 2008, which was numbered as R.A.No.100 of 2013, observing that the appellant/Bank is entitled for 19.5% interest per annum with quarterly rests on the suit amount of Rs. 6,54,67,369.03 from the date of filing of the suit and also directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore to recall the earlier recovery certificate issued by it and issue a fresh recovery certificate in terms of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the assets of the Company, however the appellant/Bank is having first charge. 6. In view thereof, the appellant/Bank alone has the first and paramount charge on the property that was sold by the Official Liquidator. Hence, their claim has to be settled in full on priority. Therefore, they approached this Court seeking a direction to pay the sum available in the Company's Liquidation Account, but this was not properly considered. The learned Single Judge observed that the claim of the appellant cannot be granted and the learned Single Judge further directed the appellant to approach the Official Liquidator. 7. In reply, Mr.S.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the learned Official Liquidator, after filing his report, date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nary claim totaling to Rs. 18,23,95,863/- Dividend declared @ 100 paise in a rupee on the admitted amount Rs. 18,23,95,863/- As per the High Court Madras, order dated 20.12.2012 in CA.Nos.889 & 890 of 2012 2. --- Being interest @ 19.5% as ordered by DRAT Rs. 3,87,46,017/- As per the order dated 27.03.2013 in C.A.Nos.405 & 406 of 2013 3. --- Amount of interest @ 4% paid by the Official Liquidator from the date winding up order to the date of dividend declared i.e., 02.07.1993 to 2012 (19 years) as per Rule 179 of Companies Court (Rules) 1959 pari passu with the workmen. Rs. 4,97,55,,200.44 As per the order dated 28.03.2018 in C.A.No.71 of 2018 Rs. 18,23,95,863/- Rs. 27,08,97,080.44 9. It is further st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the re-adjudication of workmen claims with break ups on the next hearing. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator also filed a report dated 25.06.2021 with break-up details of workmen. Later, the Official Liquidator submitted that the re-adjudication work has not been completed for the reason that the disbursement work of interest amount at 4% was going on during that time. However, inadvertently, it was mentioned in the report dated 25.06.2021 that the re-adjudication work was made, instead of stating that, the calculation of arrears of wages for the years 1990 to 1993 were partially made. The Official Liquidator made the following details for re-consideration:- S.No. Particulars No. of claims 1. Total No. of claims of workmen rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
