Skip to content


Radheshyam Ajitsaria and anr. Vs. Bengal Chatkal Mazdoor Union and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 4101-4103, 5906 and 5907 of 2004 with SLP (C) Nos. 6257-6258 of 2004
Judge
Reported inIII(2006)BC353(SC); (2006)5CompLJ1(SC); 2006(6)SCALE361; (2006)11SCC771; [2006]69SCL73(SC)
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 441, 466 and 529A; Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 11, 11(1), 11(2) and 11(2)(1); Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 94; Constitution of India - Article 136
AppellantRadheshyam Ajitsaria and anr.
RespondentBengal Chatkal Mazdoor Union and ors.
Advocates: Jaideep Gupta,; S.K. Bagaria and; R.F. Nariman, Sr. Adv.,
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.2004 of the High Court of Calcutta in A.P.O.T. Nos. 162 and 271-272/2001 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting   
Excerpt:
.....in high court against x company on ground of failure to pay dues to several of its creditors - company judge directed winding up and appointed liquidator with direction to take possession of assets of company - appeal - division bench of high court allowed appeal. - m.p. accommodation control act, 1961 [m.p. act no. 41/1961]. sections 12(1)(b), 15 & 16: [a.k. mathur & markandey katju, jj] eviction on ground of unauthorised sub-letting - sub-tenancy created years before enforcement of act - notice as required under section 15 was not given by sub-tenant to landlord order of eviction passed only on that ground - impact of earlier rent acts and sections 15 and16 of present act on sub-tenancy not properly considered order was set aside and matter remitted to high court. - the learned..........approved today. further, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to work out the scheme by the learned company judge, calcutta high court, who is seized of the matter. it is contended by some of the secured creditors that by the operation of the scheme, the assets of the secured creditors should not be allowed to be affected. this contention of the secured creditors may be agitated before the company judge, if they are so entitled. all intervention applications are dismissed without prejudice to their rights, if any, to applicants move the company judge, calcutta high court.we express our appreciation of the work of the special officer and on the report he has submitted. the remuneration of the special officer is filed at rs. 5,500/- and to be paid out of the assets of the company......
Judgment:
ORDER

Special leave granted. Heard, learned Counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the scope of this appeal and having considered the report of the Special Officer, dated 13th November 1988 made pursuant to the order of this Court, we are of the opinion that the scheme supported by the workers and unsecured creditors of Raj Kumar Nemani, be accepted and a detailed scheme on that basis be formulated. It is desirable that the scheme be implemented as soon as possible and the workers and the creditors should be paid in accordance with the scheme, approved today. Further, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to work out the scheme by the learned Company Judge, Calcutta High Court, who is seized of the matter. It is contended by some of the secured creditors that by the operation of the scheme, the assets of the secured creditors should not be allowed to be affected. This contention of the secured creditors may be agitated before the Company Judge, if they are so entitled. All intervention applications are dismissed without prejudice to their rights, if any, to applicants move the Company Judge, Calcutta High Court.

We express our appreciation of the work of the Special Officer and on the report he has submitted. The remuneration of the Special Officer is filed at Rs. 5,500/- and to be paid out of the assets of the Company. The orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are modified to the aforesaid extent.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Sabyasachi Mukharji)

Sd/-

(S. Ranganathan)

New Delhi,

30th November, 1988.

6. The learned Company Judge approved the Scheme on 16.6.1989. The Scheme, inter alia, provides for payment of all unsecured creditors, workers, secured creditors, statutory dues etc. On 02.05.1990, appellant No. 1 resigned from the Management of the Company.The learned Company Judge, while considering several applications made by unsecured creditors complaining that they were not paid by the Committee of Management, made an order dated 16.12.1991 cancelling the Scheme, observing that the Scheme had totally failed.

7. On an appeal preferred by the Committee of Management against the order dated 16.12.1991, the Division Bench of the High Court made an interim order dated 18.12.1981, reiterated on 24.3.1992 directing payment of 1% of the respective claims to all creditors on or before 7.1.1992. The Bench also stayed the order passed by the learned Company Judge dated 16.12.1991 ordering cancellation of the Scheme. A special leave petition was filed against the order dated 24.03.1992 by one of the creditors. This Court directed the appeal pending before the Division Bench of the High Court to be disposed of expeditiously, while also directing payment to the unsecured creditors to be made @ 2% per month from 01.03.1993. The said order dated 22.03.1993 in S.L.P.(C) No. 6505 of 1992 reads as follows:

Acumen Trading Corporation and Anr. .... Petitioners-Versus-Committee of Management of BaranagoreJute Factory and Ors. .... RespondentsDated : 22nd March, 1993

Coram: Hon'ble The Chief JusticeHon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Anand


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //