Allowed

M.Lansu v. Sirsilk Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Telangana HC26 Sept 2012COMPA/426/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a common order disposing of 88 company applications by workmen and employees of M/s. Sirsilk Ltd. (in liquidation), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh permitted the Official Liquidator to transfer quarter ownership to applicants at a Chartered Valuer's rate, allowing dues offset, subject to balance payment within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Order directing Official Liquidator to transfer ownership of quarters to applicants at Chartered Valuer's rate, permitting dues offset, requiring balance payment within 60 days.

M.Lansu Vs Sirsilk Ltd. (in Liqn.) — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Application Nos.400 to 487 of 2011

¶2

¶3

Company Petition No.57 of 1999

¶4

Date:26th September, 2012

¶5

Company Application No.400 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Thankamma John W/o.C.C. John

¶8

…Applicant

¶9

and

¶10

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

¶11

….Respondent

¶12

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Application Nos.400 to 487 of 2011 in Company Petition No.57 of 1999

¶14

COMMON ORDER:

¶15

All these 88 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.

¶16

2. The applicants or their principals, as the case may be, were the former employees of M/s.Sirsilk Limited, a company under liquidation. They are all residing at the quarters situated in Sirsilk Colony, Sirpur Kagaznagar, Adilabad District. They seek directions to the Official Liquidator to sell the respective quarter under their occupation for a sum equivalent to the annual rental value capitalized in accordance with Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. They also seek directions that

¶17

the Official Liquidator may adjust the consideration against the dues payable to them by the Official Liquidator, in accordance with the notice of admission/rejection of proof of debt, as modified in the appeal preferred by them.

¶18

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

¶19

4. In somewhat similar circumstances, batches of company applications vide C.A.No.140 of 2007 and batch; C.A.No.404 of 2009 and batch and C.A.No.889 of 2009 and batch have been entertained by this Court, wherein also a similar relief was solicited. The 1^st batch of the Company Applications has been disposed of by an order, dated 26.03.2009; the 2^nd batch of company applications has been disposed of by an order, dated 27.04.2009, and the 3^rd batch of Company Applications has been disposed of by an order, dated 26.04.2010. Relevant portion of the order passed in the 1^st batch of company applications, reads as hereunder:

¶20

“I consider the request made by the workmen for acquiring the quarters under their occupation for the value determined by the Chartered Valuer appears to be a fair and reasonable one. They have been maintaining these quarters for the last few years on their own. It will not be unreasonable to assume that they would have also spent considerable money for their upkeep. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to dispense with the normal method of disposing the assets of the company under liquidation by way of public auction and instead, offer these 338 quarters, the list of which has been appropriately updated and submitted to the Official Liquidator, to the workmen at the rate fixed by the Valuer.

¶21

The Official Liquidator is, therefore, directed and authorized to transfer the ownership and title over the respective quarters under the occupation of these 338 workmen in their favour for the same value as determined by the Chartered Valuer, in his report. In case, the balance money of their dues is more than the valuation of the quarters under their occupation, the Official Liquidator shall treat the occupant to have paid up the value completely. In case, there is any shortfall, he shall, by a notice, demand the balance payment to be made, which the respective workmen/employees shall pay within 60 days from the date of receipt of such notice. This exercise be completed on or before 15^th April, 2009 by the Official Liquidator.”

¶22

5. Following the above referred order passed in the 1^st batch of company applications, the 2^nd batch of company applications came to be disposed of on 27.04.2009 and 3^rd batch of company applications came to be disposed on 26.04.2010. Virtually, this is the 4^th batch of company applications, seeking the self same relief as sought for by the workmen/employees/the dependant legal representatives of the deceased workmen or employees in the earlier applications. The applicants in the present batch of company applications stand on the same footing as that of the applicants in the earlier three batches of company applications. Therefore, they too deserve for the same relief. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to adopt the same method and allow these company applications by permitting the Official Liquidator to transfer the ownership and title over the respective quarters under the occupation of these 88 workmen/employees of M/s.Sirsilk Limited for the same value as was determined by the Chartered Valuer in his report, subject to their payment of the money shown to be payable in Col.No.13 of the report filed by the Official Liquidator dated 06.06.2011, within a period of sixty days from today.

¶23

6. With this, all these Company Applications stand allowed. No costs.

¶24

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶25

Dated:26^th September, 2012.

¶26

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶28

Company Application Nos.400 to 487 of 2011 in

¶29

Company Petition No.57 of 1999

¶30

Date:26th September, 2012

M.Lansu v. Sirsilk Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Lansu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pasarthi SRinivas Vs The District Collector, Adilabad District,Adilabad

Smt Mamidi Odela Mallama Vs The District Collector

Jakkula Sammayya Vs The District Collector

T. Nagender Vs Sirsilk Ltd. (in Liqn)

Ameer Ali Vs Sirsilk Ltd. (in Liqn)

S.Susheela Vs Sirsilk Ltd. (in Liqn)