Skip to content

Employees of Punwire Mobile Communication Ltd. Vs. Punwire Mobile Communication Ltd. (In Liquidation) and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.P. Nos. 47 of 2000 and 119 of 2001
Judge
Reported in[2003]115CompCas565(P& H); [2004]49SCL616(Punj& Har)
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 466
AppellantEmployees of Punwire Mobile Communication Ltd.
RespondentPunwire Mobile Communication Ltd. (In Liquidation) and ors.
Appellant Advocate Anand Chhibber, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Sumeet Malhotra, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed

Excerpt

- haryana urban(control of rent and eviction)act,1973[har.act no.11/1973] -- section 4(2)(b): [m.m. kumar, hemant gupta, ajay & kumar mittal, jj] determination of fair rent held, the fair rent of building under the section is to be determined on the basis of rent agreed between landlord and tenant preceding the date of application. in the absence of rent agreed between parties the basic rent is required to be determined on the basis of rent prevailing in locality for a similar building or rented land on the date of application. if on the date of filing of the application under section 4 of the act for determination of fair rent, the agreed rent was still in vogue thus, it has to be regarded as the basic rent and the same would be constituted as the basis for determining fair rent. thus, where rs.500/- was paid as rent by tenant to the landlord, the same would be regarded as agreed rate of rent and the agreed rate of rent has to be regarded as basic rent within the meaning of section 4(2)(b) of the act in the process of fixing fair rent irrespective of the fact whether the lease period stipulated in a lease deed has expired......prayers have been made by the petitioner:(i) that the winding up order which has been passed ex parte qua the employees be stayed in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the petition.(ii) that the agent appointed by the official liquidator who was running the company prior to the passing of the winding up order dated july 6, 2001, be allowed and directed to continue functioning of the company as a going concern.(iii) that the official liquidator be directed to sell the company as a going concern with its complete infrastructure by issuing advertisements in all leading newspapers across the country along with the secured creditors--respondents nos. 3 and 4.2. notice of the petition was given to the official liquidator, who does not want to file a reply and is ready to argue the matter on the basis of the petition.3. i have heard mr. anand chhibber, advocate on behalf of the petitioner, mr. sumeet malhotra, advocate on behalf of the official liquidator and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.4. vide order dated july 6, 2001, the company petition filed by titan industries ltd., respondent no. 2, was allowed by relying upon the report of.....

Judgment

R.L. Anand, J.

1. This order will dispose of a petition under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, vide which the following prayers have been made by the petitioner:

(i) That the winding up order which has been passed ex parte qua the employees be stayed in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the petition.

(ii) That the agent appointed by the official liquidator who was running the company prior to the passing of the winding up order dated July 6, 2001, be allowed and directed to continue functioning of the company as a going concern.

(iii) That the official liquidator be directed to sell the company as a going concern with its complete infrastructure by issuing advertisements in all leading newspapers across the country along with the secured creditors--respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

2. Notice of the petition was given to the official liquidator, who does not want to file a reply and is ready to argue the matter on the basis of the petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Anand Chhibber, advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sumeet Malhotra, advocate on behalf of the official liquidator and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.

4. Vide order dated July 6, 2001, the company petition filed by Titan Industries Ltd., respondent No. 2, was allowed by relying upon the report of the provisional liquidator and an order for winding up of the company was passed and it was directed that the provisional liquidator will be the liquidator of the entire assets of the company and he will proceed in accordance with law.

5. During the course of submissions Mr, Chhibber has not pressed prayer No. 1, quoted above. However, he submits that Punwire Mobile Communications Ltd. the company under liquidation, is a running company and it is providing paging services in several States. Hundreds of employees are getting livelihood for providing this facility of paging and in these circumstances directions may be given to the official liquidator to maintain status quo ante as it existed on July 6, 2001. He submitted that further directions may be given to the official liquidator to sell the company as a going concern with its complete infrastructure by issuing various advertisements. The prayer of the petitioner has been opposed by the official liquidator through his lawyer, who submitted at the Bar that the company under liquidation has to pay a sum of Rs. 58.62 crores to the DoT and it is a liability upon the company. There is no sufficient fund with the company to clear the arrears of the Government and in these circumstances the prayer made in the petition should not be granted. After applying my mind to the rival contentions of the parties. I am of the opinion that this petition must be rejected. During the course of submissions it was admitted that the company has to pay a sum of Rs. 58.62 crores to the DoT. The provisional liquidator has already been provided with the powers of liquidator with the direction to take control of the entire assets of the company and to proceed in accordance with law. It is for the official liquidator now to see the interest of the creditors and to utilise the assets of the company for the best interest of creditors, secured or unsecured, and to see how the interests of the workers can be best watched. The salaries of the workers are like a secured debt. After taking control of the assets of the company the official liquidator has again to revert back to the company to see how the assets of the company can be disposed of. At this juncture I have no hesitation in dismissing this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files Start your Free Trial