Allowed

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner cum Recovery Officer, v. M/s. Phoenix Arc Private Ltd, Phoenix Arf Scheme-3.

Madras HC20 Nov 2020COMP.A/283/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted the impleadment prayer to allow the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to be impleaded as the third respondent in a related Company Application concerning a liquidated company.

What did the court decide?

Direction to implead the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner cum Recovery Officer as third respondent in Comp.A.No.14 of 2020.

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner cum Recovery… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Company Application No.283 of 2020 in Company Application No.14 of 2020 & C.P.No.207 of 2003

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED:20.11.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

Company Application No.283 of 2020 in Company Application No.14 of 2020 & C.P.No.207 of 2003

¶7

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner cum Recovery Officer Employees Provident Fund Organisation PB No.588, Sree Complex, 'D' Block 18, Madurai Road, Trichirappalli – 620 008 ... Applicant /Proposed Respondent Vs. M/s.Phoenix ARC Private Ltd., Phoenix ARF Scheme-3 5^th Floor, Dani Corporate Park No.158, C.S.T.Road, Kalina, Santacruz (B) Mumbai – 400 098

¶8

The Official Liquidator Office of the Official Liquidator Madras High Court Chennai – 600 001 as a liquidator of Sree Uma Parameswari Mills Limited ... Respondents

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

1/5

¶11

Company Application No.283 of 2020 in Company Application No.14 of 2020 & C.P.No.207 of 2003

¶12

Company Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules, 9, 11(b) and 19 of the Company Court Rules, 1989 to permit the applicant to implead the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner cum Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, PB No.588, Sree Complex, 'D' Block, 18, Madurai Road, Trichirappalli – 620 008 in Comp.A.No.14/2020 in C.P.No.207 of 2003 as proposed respondent and necessary party.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Palanimuthu
For Respondents : Mr.Palanielayaraj Kumar for R1
Mr.Bavisetty Sridhar
Deputy Official Liquidator for R2
ORDER
Mr.M.Palanimuthu, learned counsel on record for applicant,
Mr.Palanielayaraj Kumar of M/s.Ramalingm Associates on behalf of the
first respondent (ARC), Mr.Bavisetty Sridhar, learned Deputy Official
Liquidator ('Deputy OL' for the sake of brevity) on behalf of the second
respondent Official Liquidator are before me in this web-hearing on a
video-conferencing platform.

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

2/5

¶16

Company Application No.283 of 2020 in Company Application No.14 of 2020 & C.P.No.207 of 2003

¶17

'Shree Uma Parameswari Mills Limited' (hereinafter 'said company' for the sake of brevity) is the company which has gone into liquidation in the captioned main Company Petition.

¶18

This Court is informed that the Trade Union representing the workmen of said company has already been impleaded as second respondent in Comp.A.No.14 of 2020. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for applicant requests that the prayer may be treated as one seeking impleadment of the applicant in captioned application as third respondent in Comp.A.No.14 of 2020. Under the normal circumstances, this Court would not have entertained such a plea, but as the matter pertains to Provident Fund of employees and as there is no serious contest with regard to the impleadment prayer, this Court treats the captioned application as one seeking impleadment of applicant as third respondent in Comp.A.No.14 of 2020. In the hearing today, learned

¶19

counsel for ARC submitted that the averments and allegations in the affidavit filed in support of captioned application may be left open and impleadment being ordered may not please be construed as averments

¶20

and allegations being accepted. In other words, averments and allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of captioned

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

3/5

¶23

Company Application No.283 of 2020 in Company Application No.14 of 2020 & C.P.No.207 of 2003

¶24

application are left open and this Court does not express any opinion on the same in this order. It is left open to be agitated in further proceedings. The say of learned Deputy OL is no different.

¶25

This Court is informed that workmen union, which is the second respondent in Comp.A.No.14 of 2020 is also not opposing the impleadment prayer.

¶26

In the light of the trajectory which this matter has taken, making it clear that this order will not serve as a precedent as OL is trustee qua said company and its assets, applicant the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner cum Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation is directed to be impleaded as third respondent in Comp.A.No.14 of 2020 leaving open all averments and allegations in the affidavit filed in support of captioned application. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Applicant to carry out necessary and consequential amendments within a fortnight and serve copies on all concerned within another fortnight therefrom.

¶28

gpa

¶29

20.11.2020

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

4/5

¶32

Company Application No.283 of 2020 in Company Application No.14 of 2020 & C.P.No.207 of 2003

¶33

M.SUNDAR.J.,

¶34

gpa

¶35

Company Application No.283 of 2020 in
Company Application No.14 of 2020 &
C.P.No.207 of 2003
20.11.2020

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

5/5

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner cum Recovery Officer, v. M/s. Phoenix Arc Private Ltd, Phoenix Arf Scheme-3.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner cum Recovery Officer, v. M/s. Phoenix Arc Private Ltd, Phoenix Arf Scheme-3.

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

M/s.The Waterbase Limited a Company registered undet the Companies Act 1956 Vs Mr.Sanaka Venkata Narasimha Rao Proprietor M/s.Sri Sai Teja Aqua Needs

The Chennai Port Trust Vs M/S.Chettinad Logistics(P)

M/s.Jones Foundation Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its Managing Director, Vs G4S Secure Solutions(India)pvt.Ltd, Represented by its General Manager/Hr Head

The Official Liquidator, High Court Vs nil

The Official Liquidator, High Court Madras Vs nil

The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras Vs nil