Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2006 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (5) TMI 192 - SUPREME COURTWhether the Division Bench of the High Court was entitled to allow the appeal without first deciding the maintainability of the appeals as directed in terms of the order dated 29-3-2001? Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was entitled to withhold the payment of the pre-scheme unsecured creditors in view of the specific direction given by this Court on 31-3-1994? Whether the Division Bench was entitled to direct re-adjudication of the claims, which were already adjudicated contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 30-11-1998 and 1-12-1998? Whether the workers can have any stake and have right to receive any payment from the fund lying with the Registrar, original side of the High Court of Calcutta which was specially earmarked for the pre-scheme unsecured creditors as defined in the Scheme? Whether the finding and decision of the learned Company Judge can be ignored and/or overlooked on the ground that no enquiry was held by the Registrar? Held that:- Appeal allowed. It is crystal clear that finding of the Division Bench of the High Court, that the claim of the appellants have not been duly adjudicated is erroneous as claim of the appellants have duly been adjudicated by the Registrar, High Court, Original Side, with the help of the Chartered Accountant as would be evident from Certificate dated 15-3-2004 issued by the Registrar. Thus, the said order dated 3-3-2004 passed by the Division Bench as against these appellants is liable to be set aside. Thus the appellants are entitled for payment as pre-scheme unsecured creditors in view of the specific directions given by this Court on 31-3-1994.
|