Dismissed

Maragatham v. Sirsilk Ltd. (In Liqn)

Telangana HC26 Apr 2010COMPA/1031/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In consolidated Company Applications, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the petitions filed by former employees and dependants of a liquidated company seeking direction to sell quarters. The Court held that without details of entitlement to workmen dues, the relief could not be considered. Applicants were given liberty to renew the request upon providing necessary details and adjudication of claims.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought (sale of quarters) dismissed; liberty granted to renew request after furnishing details of entitlement.

Maragatham Vs Sirsilk Ltd. (In Liqn) — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Application Nos.892, 900, 904, 912, 939, 958, 964, 996 and

¶2

1031 of 2009

¶3

¶4

Company Petition No.57 of 1999

¶5

Date:2 6 th April, 2010

¶6

C.A.No.892 of 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ram Prakash Singh S/o. Bahadur Singh

¶9

…Applicant

¶10

and

¶11

Sirsilk Ltd. (in liquidation), rep. by the Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶12

….Respondent

¶13

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Application Nos.892, 900, 904, 912, 939, 958, 964, 996 and

¶15

1031 of 2009

¶16

¶17

Company Petition No.57 of 1999

¶18

COMMON ORDER:

¶19

These 9 Company Applications have been moved by the workmen/employees/ the dependant legal representatives of the deceased workmen or employees essentially seeking the same relief. Hence, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order.

¶20

2. Heard Sri S.Ravi, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants and Sri M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator.

¶21

3. The applicants claim that they are the former employees of

¶22

M/s.Sirsilk Limited, a company under liquidation. By an order dated 26.04.2001 made in Company Petition No.57 of 1999, this Court directed for winding up of M/s.Sirsilk Limited. Consequently, by virtue of Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Official Liquidator attached to this Court became its liquidator. In pursuance of the statutory compliance and time to time directions of this Court, assets of the company in liquidation both movable and immovable were taken possession by the Official Liquidator and thereafter, got valued the properties of the company through M/s.APITCO Ltd. in the year 2003. Thereafter, with the permission of this Court, the Official Liquidator sold the company’s plant, machinery, furniture and vehicles situated at Sirpur Village, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District, for an amount ofRs.18,14,00,000/-. In view of the said realization of the partial sale of the properties of the company in liquidation, the claims were invited by the Official Liquidator in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In response thereto, the Official Liquidator received claims from various creditors and the same were adjudicated and admitted. The details are hereunder:

¶23

ADMITTED AS SECURED DEBT:

¶24

Secured Creditor viz., IDBI Rs. 991.85 Lakhs Workmen (Regular) Rs.1307.37 Lakhs Workmen (casual labours) Rs. 76.95 Lakhs

¶25

----------------------------Total Rs.2376.17 Lakhs

¶26

----------------------------- PREFERENTIAL / UNSECURED DEBT:

¶27

Sl.No. Name of the Claimant Amount Claimed 1. Central Excise Rs.17,89,920-00 2. Textiles Committee Rs. 3,17,615-00 3. Commercial Tax Officer Rs.19,19,205-00 4. Industries & Comm. Dept. Rs.1,40,00,000-00 (This claim is for Term Loan of Rs.140 lacs. As deposit of Title Deeds of immovable properties)

¶28

5. P.F. Commissioner Rs.5,65,367-90 6. General Electricals Rs. 43,668-52 7. Srinivasa Trading Co. Rs. 40,662-00 8. Chem. Value Industries Rs.7,46,928-00 9. Ravi Old Iron Merchant Rs.3,23,888-00

¶29

10.Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Rs.7,30,29,000-00 (This claim has been adjudicated and Rs.614.47 Lacs was admitted as unsecured debt).

¶30

------------------------Total Rs.9,27,76,254-42

¶31

-------------------------

¶32

The Official Liquidator after obtaining permission of this Court paid 1^st and 2^nd dividends to the secured creditors and workmen totaling to an amount of Rs.16,66,31,259/-. The details are hereunder:

¶33

Description of the secured debt	Amount admitted as secured debt	Paid as 1^st& 2^nd Dividend	Balance yet to be paid
IDBI	Rs.991.85 lakhs	Rs.7,26,90,000/-	Rs.264.95 lakhs
Workmen (Regular)	Rs.1307.37 Lakhs	Rs.8,.98,46,464/-	Rs.4,08,90,536/-
Workmen (Casual Labours)	Rs.76.95 Lakhs	Rs.40,94,795/-	Rs.36,00,205/-
Total	Rs.23,76,17,000/-	Rs.16,66,31,259/-	Rs.7,09,85,741/-

¶34

The present applications have been filed seeking direction to the Official Liquidator to sell the quarter in favour of the respective applicants for a sum of equallent to the annual rental value capitalized in accordance with Schedule-III of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.

¶35

4. The Official Liquidator placed on record his report dated 05.10.2009. As per the report, the applicants have not furnished any information as to their entitlement towards the workmen dues to consider the request of the applicants. Without furnishing the necessary details, the relief sought for by the applicants cannot be considered.

¶36

5. Hence, these Company Applications are dismissed for the present reserving the liberty to the applicants to renew their request after furnishing the necessary details called for by the Official Liquidator and adjudication of their claims. No costs.

¶37

________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶38

Dated:26^th April, 2010. cs

¶39

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶40

Company Application Nos.892, 900, 904, 912, 939, 958, 964, 996 and 1031 of 2009

¶41

in Company Petition No.57 of 1999

¶42

Date:2 6 th April, 2010

Maragatham v. Sirsilk Ltd. (In Liqn)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maragatham v. Sirsilk Ltd. (In Liqn)

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

Ecmas Polyesters pvt,ltd. Vs -

Cheennuri Radha Krishna Rao Vs Motamarri Venkatesham

Ecmas Resins Pvt, Ltd. Vs -

S Andamma Vs Sirsilk Ltd. (in Liqn)

Maifuz Ali Vs Sirsilk Ltd. (in Liqn)

G Chitti Babu Vs Sirsilk Ltd. (in Liqn)