Allowed

Ramesh R v. the Official Liquidator of M/S Bee Jay Pee Sacks Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2024CA/62/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A workman of a company in liquidation failed to file his Form No.66 claim affidavit after the Official Liquidator's 2014 paper publication inviting claims, and sought condonation of an 8-year delay. The Official Liquidator raised no objection; the court found sufficient cause and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

8-year delay condoned; Official Liquidator directed to adjudicate the workman's claim within two months.

Ramesh R Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50544 CA No. 62 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2023

¶8

¶9

COMPANY PETITION No.60 OF 2004

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

RAMESH R S/O LATE C RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT KOCHANAHALLI SOMESHWARA POST VARAUNA HOBLI, KOCHANAHALLI MYSURU 571302

¶12

…APPLICANT

¶13

(BY SMT. SHOBHA H K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by B VEENA KUMARI

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S BEE JAY PEE SACKS PVT. LTD., (IN LIQUIDATION) HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 12^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWER MAHATHMA GANDHI ROAD BENGALURU 560001

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND FOR OL)

¶20

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 177 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1959, R/W SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 8

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:50544 CA No. 62 of 2023

¶23

YEARS IN PREFERRING THE CLAIM FORM No.66 AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND DIRECT THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR IN ADJUDICATE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPLICANT; AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The applicant applied under Rule 177 of the

¶28

Companies (Court) Rules 1959, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶29

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this application are as follows:

¶30

The respondent – company (in liquidation) was closed on 13.12.2001, and this Court appointed the official liquidator attached to this Court as liquidator of the respondent – company. The applicant is the workman of the respondent. The company owes dues as wage arrears, gratuity, leave salary, etc., to the applicant at the time of its winding up. The official liquidator, though called for claim from workmen, issued the paper publication in 2014

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:50544 CA No. 62 of 2023

¶33

stating that, the claim affidavit required to be filed, and the applicant could not file Form-66 within a stipulated period. Hence, the applicant has filed the application to condone the delay of 8 years in filing Form No.66.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the official liquidator.

¶35

The official liquidator submits no objections to allow the application to condone the delay. The applicant is a workman of the respondent – company (in liquidation), and the respondent –company as it owes dues as wage arrears, gratuity, leave salary etc., to the applicant. This Court has passed the order to wound up the company and appointed the official liquidator. The official liquidator issued the paper publication in 2014, inviting the claim, but the applicant could not file Form No.66 within a stipulated period. Thus, the delay was caused by preferring the claim to be made before the official liquidator. Hence, the applicant has shown sufficient cause

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:50544 CA No. 62 of 2023

¶38

to condone the delay in filing the claim before the official

¶39

liquidator. The application deserves to be allowed.

¶40

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The company application is allowed.

¶43

ii. A delay of 8 years is condoned in preferring the claim Form No.66 affidavit before the official liquidator.

¶44

iii. The official liquidator is directed to adjudicate the claim made by the applicant in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶46

SKS

Ramesh R v. the Official Liquidator of M/S Bee Jay Pee Sacks Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh R v. the Official Liquidator of M/S Bee Jay Pee Sacks Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kale Gowda a Vs Kaladurge Gowda

Basavarajaiah Vs Smt. Kalamma

Sri. Narayanappa Vs Smt. Munilakshmamma

Kumar Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S Bee Jay Pee Sacks Pvt. Ltd. (in Liquidation)

Madappa Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S Bee Jay Pee Sacks Pvt. Ltd.

Kumara Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S Bee Jay Pee Sacks Pvt. Ltd.