Disposal of a company liquidation proceeding for Rs. 10,455. The court declined to issue warrants, citing the recovery amount was minimal compared to court time consumed and availability of surplus funds, and dismissed the application.
The application is taken as closed and disposed; the matter is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Coap148/2003
// 1 //
I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR
ORDER I N S. B. Company Appl i cat i on No. 148/ 2003
The Of f i ci al Li qui dat or of M/ s Amf or t Agr o Fi nance Lt d. ( I n Li qui dat i on) , At t ached t o Raj ast han Hi gh Cour t , Jai pur Vs. Shr i Daul at Si ngh and Ot her s
Dat e of Or der : : : 01. 08. 2014
Pr esent
Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce Mohammad Raf i q
Shr i R. K. Meena, Of f i ci al Li qui dat or , pr esent i n per son ####
By t he Cour t : -
Thi s company appl i cat i on was f i l ed by t he of f i ci al l i qui dat or way back on 25. 02. 2000 f or r ecover y of a sum of Rs. 10, 455/ - , whi ch i ncl udes t he pr i nci pal amount of Rs. 7000/ - and i nt er est of Rs. 3455/ - as on 24. 09. 1999 f r om t he r espondent s - Shr i Daul at Si ngh, R/ o Vi l l age Rai t hal i a, Post Ashar wa, Tehsi l Deedwar an Di st r i ct nagar u, Shr i Rameshwar Lal , R/ o Vi l l age and Post Toshi na, Di st r i ct Nagaur and Shr i Sakei r , R/ o Vi l l age and Post Chhot i Khat u, Di st r i ct Nagaur , who wer e shown as debt or of t he company i n l i qui dat i on, namel y, M/ s. Amf or t Agr o Fi nance Li mi t ed. The sai d company was or der ed t o be wound up by or der dat ed 13. 1. 1997.
Accor di ng t o t he appl i cant , t he r espondent no. 1 was shown t o have been advanced a l oan of Rs. 7, 000 f or pur chase of agr i cul t ur e i mpl ant s. The r espondent s no. 2 and 3 st ood as sur et i es. The appl i cat i on was i ni t i al l y f i l ed on def ect si de, and t he def ect s wer e wai ved by t hi s cour t vi de or der dat ed 23. 05. 2003. The not i ces of t he appl i cat i on wer e or der ed t o be i ssued on 01. 04. 2005. As per of f i ce r epor t dat ed 07. 11. 2005, t he not i ces wer e r ecei ved unser ved due t o i ncompl et e addr ess. The cour t vi de or der dat ed 27. 05. 2010 or der ed t o i ssue f r esh not i ce t o unser ved r espondent s. Fr esh pr ocess f ee and not i ces wer e f i l ed on 20. 10. 2010 but f r esh addr ess of r espondent s no. 2 and 3 was not f i l ed. As per of f i ce r epor t , f r esh addr ess of r espondent s no. 2 and 3 was not f i l ed t i l l 27. 04. 2011. On 28. 04. 2011 t he l ear ned counsel submi t t ed bef or e t he cour t t hat
Coap148/2003
// 2 //
f r esh PF and not i ces of r espondent s wi t h t he addr ess avai l abl e on r ecor d, have been f i l ed. When t he not i ces wer e i ssued t o t he r espondent s on t he gi ven addr ess, t he same wer e r ecei ved unser ved f or want of compl et e addr ess. The posi t i on r emai ned t he same as t he appl i cant f ai l ed t o gi ve cor r ect addr ess of t he r espondent s t i l l 13. 02. 2012. On 23. 02. 2012, t he counsel f or appl i cant submi t t ed bef or e t he cour t t hat PF and not i ces have been f i l ed i n t he r egi st r y. Ther eaf t er , t he of f i ce r epor t ed t hat t he not i ces wi t h f r esh addr ess of r espondent s no. 1 and 3 wer e f i l ed but t hat of r espondent no. 2 was not f i l ed. On 17. 05. 2012 agai n t he l ear ned counsel submi t t ed bef or e t he cour t t hat f r esh not i ces f or r espondent s no. 1 t o 3 have been f i l ed i n t he of f i ce. Ther eaf t er t he not i ces wer e i ssued t o t he r espondent s. Not i ce of r espondent no. 2 was r ecei ved unser ved wi t h t he r epor t t hat addr ess was not f ound and not i ce of r espondent no. 3 was r ecei ved unser ved wi t h t he r epor t t hat he has gone abr oad. Not i ce of r espondent no. 1 r emai ned awai t ed t i l l 06. 09. 2013. The appl i cant f i l ed f r esh not i ce f or r espondent no. 1 on 19. 09. 2013, whi ch wer e or der ed t o be i ssued. The same wer e i ssued on 20. 12. 2013 and as per of f i ce r epor t dat ed 25. 04. 2014 t he same wer e r ecei ved unser ved wi t h t he r epor t t hat he was out of st at i on. Ther eaf t er , as per of f i ce r epor t , t he appl i cant has not f i l ed f r esh pr ocess f ee and not i ces f or t he r espondent s t i l l dat e. I t appear s t hat t he appl i cant has f ai l ed t o t r ace out t he cor r ect addr ess of t he non- appl i cant s.
The amount whi ch i s sought t o be r ecover ed i s onl y Rs. 10, 455/ - , whi ch i ncl udes t he pr i nci pal amount of Rs. 7000/ - and i nt er est of Rs. 3455/ - as on 24. 09. 1999, and t he t i me, ener gy t hat has been consumed by t he of f i ci al l i qui dat or , of f i ce of t hi s Cour t and pr ocess ser ver at t ached t o cour t bel ow dur i ng t he i nt er r egnum f or ef f ect i ng ser vi ce on r espondent s i s much mor e t han what was t he amount sought t o be ul t i mat el y r ecover ed. Even ot her wi se as i nf or med by l ear ned counsel f or t he appl i cant , t her e i s sur pl us money i n t he account of t he company i n l i qui dat i on wi t h t he of f i ci al l i qui dat or , t her ef or e, f or r ecover y of such a smal l amount ,
Coap148/2003
// 3 //
t hi s Cour t does not deem i t appr opr i at e t o f or ce t he at t endance of t he r espondent by i ssui ng bai l abl e/ non- bai l abl e war r ant .
I n t he ci r cumst ances, t hi s Cour t does not see any j ust i f i cat i on f or cont i nui ng t he pr oceedi ngs i n t he pr esent appl i cat i on and consi gn t he same t o r ecor d.
The mat t er i s accor di ngl y t aken as cl osed and di sposed
of .
( Mohammad Raf i q) J.
//Jaiman//65
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a company liquidator should be compelled to attend for recovery of a Rs. 10,455 claim when the court has surplus funds in the liquidation account.
Whether the court should continue summary proceedings against defaulting respondents for the same cause despite multiple failed service attempts.
The Official Liquidator of M/ s Amfort Agro Finance Ltd. ( In Liquidation) , Attached to Rajasthan High Court , Jaipur
Shr i Daulat Singh
Shr i Rameshwar Lal
Shr i Sakeir
Mohammad Rafiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court