Allowed

M/s India Rubber Limited (In Liqn.) v. -

Telangana HC3 Jan 2012COMPA/1973/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application by the Official Liquidator to vary Form No.71. The court authorized a dividend declaration of 21.82% to the Provident Fund Department, opening a separate bank account for payment, and dispensed with newspaper publication of the notice.

What did the court decide?

A dividend of 21.82% declared; separate dividend account authorized; newspaper notice dispensed with; individual notices to be sent.

M/s India Rubber Limited (In Liqn.) Vs - — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Company Application No.1973 of 2011

¶3

Dated : 03-01-2012

¶4

Between: M/s India Rubber Limited (in liqun.) Rep. by The Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶5

…..Applicant Company

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶7

Company Application No.1973 of 2011

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This application has been taken out by the Official Liquidator representing M/s India Rubber Limited (in Liqn.) under Sections 457(1)(e) and 460(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 r/w Rule 9, 167, 168, 169, 275 and 276 of the Companies Court Rules, 1959 to take the certificate in Form No.71 as varied as Annexure-D and declare a dividend at 21.82% to P.F.Department, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, authorize the Official Liquidator to open a separate dividend account in Punjab National Bank and to pay the dividend entitled to the creditors out of the said account and to dispense with publication of notice of dividend in news papers.

¶10

This Court by order dated 20.06.2008 authorised the Official Liquidator to fix the schedule for making payment of dividend and to take all such necessary and appropriate measures which are incidental to the declaration and effective payment of dividend to the secured debtors. Earlier the amount due to the Employees Fund Organisation was considered as a preferential debt under Section 530 of the Companies Act. In view of the judgment in Maharashtra State Co.operative Bank Limited v APFC and others, the Official Liquidator considered the dues payable under the provident Fund Act as first charge on assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator admitted the claim of the Provident

¶11

Fund Organisation to an extent of Rs.8,69,462/- as secured debtor while rejecting the balance claim of Rs.6,44,282/-. Since the amount due to the Provident Fund Organisation is being considered as first charge on the assets of the Company (in liquidation), the Form No.71 filed earlier is required to be varied. Hence, this application.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the affidavit filed in support of the application and Annexure A to D.

¶13

The circumstances under which Form No.71 filed earlier is required to be varied has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed taking the certificate in Form No.71 as varied as Annexure D and declaring a dividend at 21.82% to P.F. Department, Kukatpally, Hyderabad amounting to Rs.1,89,716/-. The Official Liquidator is authorized to open a separate dividend account in Punjab National Bank and to pay the dividend to the P.F.Department out of the said account. Publication of notice of dividend in news papers is dispensed with. The Official Liquidator is authorized to send individual notice of dividend to P.F.Department, Kukatpally in Form No.138 along with the receipt thereof. In case any dividend amount remains unpaid even after expiry of six months, in accordance with Section 555 of the Companies Act, the same may be transferred to the companies liquidation account.

¶14

_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

¶15

Dt.3^rd January, 2012

¶16

PNV

M/s India Rubber Limited (In Liqn.) v. -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s India Rubber Limited (In Liqn.) v. -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Chandra Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Jagannatham, S/o. P. Lingaiah, Vs The Divisional Security Commissioner/Mg.

A. Chandra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Inspector of

M/s.Gati Ltd. Vs The Oriental Insuranace Company Ltd.

Kande Jayamma Vs Chinni Lalithamma

Parthasarathi Art Printers (p) Ltd. Vs G.K.R.P.Chit Funds (a.P.) Pvt.LTd.