9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O.A. No. 54/2002 passed an order thereby making the Bank of Baroda entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 7,57,77,191/- plus interest towards loan defaults, which order was also upheld by the DRAT vide order dated 28.05.2015. It was in respect of the aforesaid claim of Bank of Baroda being in the nature of a secured creditor, that a sum of Rs. 6.50 crores was paid towards full and final settlement of its claim. The order dated 31.01.2019 has not been assailed by the applicant and the same has attained finality. It goes without saying that a sum of Rs. 7,56,02,575/- has further been paid to Bank of Baroda in respect of the claims in the capacity of being a Debenture Trustee, which has been assessed up to the date of provisional winding up of the company vide order dated 25.02.2002. There is no error apparent on the face of the record to seek review of the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by this Court - this Court finds no merit in the present application - application dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA For the Petitioner Through: Mr. B.B. Pradhan, Adv. for CO. APPL. 355/2024 Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shivang Bansal, Adv. For the Respondent Through: Mr. Sumi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able in law insofar as the conclusion arrived at by this Court therein, is based on the wrong assumption that the claims of the other secured creditors of the company (in liquidation), being Bank of Baroda as also the Workmen, were adjudicated up till the date of appointment of the provisional liquidator i.e., 25.02.2002. However, it is urged that while Bank of Baroda was already allowed a sum of Rs. 7,56,02,575/- up to the date of appointment of the provisional liquidator as full and final settlement of its dues, this Court subsequently allowed a sum of Rs. 6.50 crores to be released to the Bank of Baroda, vide order dated 31.01.2019. Thus, it is the case of the applicant that the basic premise of the impugned order dated 03.02.2023 is flawed, and therefore, the impugned order dated 03.02.2023 requires reconsideration and modification. 6. First things first, it would be apposite to consider the observations made and directions passed by this Court in the order dated 28.09.2012, which is reproduced hereinbelow: REPORT No. 536/2012 Report of the Official Liquidator dated 26.9.2012 is taken on record. Company M/s Reinz Taibros Ltd. had been provisionally ordered to be wound up on 25. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Provisional Liquidator on 25th February, 2002, he was also directed to take charge of books of accounts of the Company. However, no limitation or condition was imposed on his powers vide said order. Consequently, he took charge of the assets of the Company and thus commenced the liquidation process. A proclamation of sale of assets of the company was also ordered on 19th April, 2007. Later on 12th July, 2007, the company s factory at Plot No. 8 Site-B, Surajpur Industrial Area, Noida, Dadra Road, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar was auctioned to M/s. Pavas Chemicals P. Ltd. for Rs. 5,55,00,000/-. Vide order dated 03rd November, 2011, Court accepted the sale of plant, machinery and other miscellaneous fixed assets to Mis Rock International India, against the reserve price of Rs. 46,00,0001-. In compliance with the order dated 04th August, 2011, possession of the Company's registered office situated at Flat No. 203, R. 19, Shakarpur, Vikas Marg, New Delhi was handed back to its owner - Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma on 23rd November, 2011. Fresh sale proclamation for land and building (lease hold) bearing Plot No. 19, Site No. II, Loni Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in Vishwanath Namdeo Patil (Supra) is also misplaced as the Court in that case had, in an entirely different set of facts and circumstances, decided the question of relevant date for calculation of workmen's dues. Petitioner herein is a secured debenture holder, whose claim ought to be decided up to the date of appointment of Provisional Liquidator. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the present application is allowed and Paragraph No. 1 on page No. 3 of the order dated 28th September, 2012 is modified to the effect that the claim of petitioning creditor shall be adjudicated up to the date of provisional winding up, i.e., 25th February, 2002 and not up to the date of final winding up, i.e., 9th August, 2012. SUBMISSIONS: 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that its claim must be adjudicated up to the date of final winding up of the company (in liquidation) i.e., 09.08.2012. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on Rule 154 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and it is argued that the value of all debts and claims against the company shall as far as is possible, be estimated according to the value thereof at the date of order of the winding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly, in the capacity of a secured creditor, and secondly in the capacity of a Debenture Trustee; and therefore, the Bank and the applicant herein are not on an equal footing. In this regard, reference is invited to the order dated 28.09.20212, which specifically mentions the position of Bank of Baroda, insofar as it has admitted claims as both, a secured creditor as also a Debenture Trustee. 12. In this regard, it is submitted on behalf of the Official Liquidator, that contrary to the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant, the sum of Rs. 7,56,02,275/- has been paid to Bank of Baroda against their dues in the capacity of being a Debenture Trustee and such amount has been adjudicated up till the date of appointment of the Provisional Liquidator i.e., 25.02.2002. Whereas, the amount of Rs. 6.50 crores which subsequently came to be released in favour of Bank of Baroda vide order dated 31.01.2019, is in respect of the recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal [DRT], in favour of the Bank in its capacity as a secured creditor, which amount was also upheld by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT] vide order dated 28.05.2015. Thus, it is submitted that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat CA 416/2018 is filed seeking release of Rs. 6.50 crores in favour of Bank of Baroda in full and final settlement of the entire outstanding dues. This court also noted submission of learned counsel for the Ex. Directors that the debenture trustees have so far been able to establish a claim of Rs. 2,50,88,760/-. This court directed the Official Liquidator to release Rs. 6.5 crores to Bank of Baroda before 31.3.2018 as full and final settlement of all claims as a secured creditor. A direction was issued to the debenture trustee/Bank of Baroda to take steps regarding the claims of the debenture trustees. This court had also noted that fund position of the company was Rs. 27 crores and there were only two claims pending, namely, of Bank of Baroda and debenture trustee. 2. On 2.5.2018 the court dealt with the application CA 549/2018 filed by the Official Liquidator seeking recall of the order dated 22.3.2018 stating that the Bank of Baroda had earlier filed a claim before the Official Liquidator which was accepted for a sum of Rs. 7,56,02,575/-. This amount was duly released to Bank of Baroda. In contrast learned counsel appearing for the Ex-Directors and for Bank of Baroda had point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
