Allowed

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

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2024CA/64/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A workman sought condonation of an 8-year delay in filing his claim Form No.66 for wage arrears, gratuity and leave salary against a company in liquidation, having missed the Official Liquidator's 2014 paper publication call for claims.

What did the court decide?

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

Kumara Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S Bee Jay… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50548 CA No. 64 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. 64 OF 2023

¶8

¶9

COMPANY PETITION No. 60 OF 2004

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

KUMARA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A KOODANAHALLI GRAMA SOMESHWARAPURA POST VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU-571311

¶12

…APPLICANT

¶13

(BY SMT. SHOBHA H K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by B VEENA KUMARI

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶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 (BY SRI. SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND FOR OL) 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 YEARS IN PREFERRING THE CLAIM FORM No.66 AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND DIRECT THE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:50548 CA No. 64 of 2023

¶21

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR IN ADJUDICATE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPLICANT; AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The applicant applied under Rule 177 of the

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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 stating that, the claim affidavit required to be filed, and

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:50548 CA No. 64 of 2023

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

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 to condone the delay in filing the claim before the official liquidator. The application deserves to be allowed.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:50548 CA No. 64 of 2023

¶36

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The company application is allowed.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶42

SKS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumara 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.

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