Dismissed

Uma Shankar Mishra v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay for M/S. Shriniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Bombay HC3 Sept 2013CA/236/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a company application, the applicant sought to set aside an Official Liquidator's rejection of his claim for workmen's dues for lack of evidence proving his employment status on the relevant date. Relying on internal records from the Workers Union, the court upheld the rejection.

What did the court decide?

The company application was rejected and the claim for legal dues was dismissed.

Uma Shankar Mishra Vs Official Liquidator, High Court… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

ca-236.13.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.236 OF 2013 IN

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO.642 OF 1983

¶6

Uma Shankar Mishra	..	Applicant
In the matter between
Reliance Textile Industries Ltd. Vs.	..	Orig. Petitioner
M/s. Shriniwas Coton Mills Ltd. And	..	Orig.Respondent
Uma Shankar Mishra Vs.	..	Applicant
Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay of M/s.Shriniwas Coton Mills Ltd.	..	Respondent

¶7

Mr.N.M. Ganguli for the applicant.

¶8

Mr. Cyrus Ardheshir a/w Ms. Prachi Dhanani i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the respondent.

¶9

Ms.Rupa Sutar, Assistant Official Liquidator present.

¶10

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 3 September 2013

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. By this application, the applicant prays that notice issued by the Official Liquidator be set aside and the Official Liquidator be directed to re-adjudicate the claim for legal dues/dividend.

¶13

The applicant had filed proof of debt with the Official Liquidator on the ground that the applicant was working with the Textile Mills of the Company under liquidation. Claiming a workmen of the company, he had filed his claim before the Official Liquidator for

¶14

ppn 2 ca-236.13.doc

¶15

payment on priority under Section 529-A of the Companies Act. The Official Liquidator rejected the claim by letter dated 3 February 2013. The basis of rejection is that the applicant did not produce any evidence to show that the applicant was on the roll of the company as on 25 July 1984. The Official Liquidator has filed an affidavit in which it is stated that by order dated 3 August 2009 in Company Application No.1294 of 2007 in Company Petition No.642 of 1983, all further proceedings for winding up of the company were stayed and certain modalities of payment for all the workmen employed with the company on the date of closure i.e. 25 July 1984 were arrived at. It is stated by the Official Liquidator that the main criterion was that the name of the workmen should appear as workmen on the rolls of the company on 25 July 1984, and that it must be established that their services were not terminated between 1981 and 1984.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that that the hut in which the applicant was residing had burnt down and all the documents were lost. A communication from Employees Provident Fund Organisation dated 31 August 2010 is sought to be relied upon. Apart from this communication dated 31 August 2010, which does not shed any light as to the requirements contemplated under order dated 3 August 2009, there are absolutely no documents produced to even discharge the initial burden for hearing of this application any further. On the other hand, it has been placed on record by the Official Liquidator that the name of the applicant appears in the record of employees provided by the Union with specific remarks as “Retired” and also with “no amount is payable against his name.” This is statement is given by

¶17

ca-236.13.doc

¶18

ppn 3

¶19

the Workers Union itself. Nothing is shown by the applicant that the reliance of the Official Liquidator on the statement is incorrect. This is a case where there is absolutely no evidence produced by the applicant and the statement furnished by the Union is contrary to the claim of the applicant. In the circumstances, the decision of the Official Liquidator cannot be faulted with.

¶20

The application is accordingly rejected.

¶21

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Uma Shankar Mishra v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay for M/S. Shriniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Shankar Mishra v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay for M/S. Shriniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. Vs Shri Venketesa Papers and Board Ltd. and Anr.

La Cure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Abhiruchi Properties Ltd. Vs ---

Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Unimers India Limited

Srm Energy Limited Vs

Modern Cargo Services Private Ltd, Vs Premier Supplies and Services Private Limited - U74140MH2004PTC149211