TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r claims are pending. We are informed that Smt. Madhu Bala is a senior citizen who is residing in Meerut. Her husband is stated to be a pensioner who has been compelled to contest the case in Delhi since 2010 when notice in Co. Application No.01/2010 was issued. We are of the view that they have been unreasonably harassed. For all these reasons, the order dated 28th May, 2013 directing the appellant to refund the amount to the official liquidator with interest is hereby set aside and quashed. The appellant shall be entitled to costs which are quantified at ₹ 20,000/- which shall be sent by demand draft to the appellant at her address on the memo of parties within a period of four weeks from today.- Decided in favour of appellant. - CO.APP. 43/2013 & CM No.10292/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-9-2014 - MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL AND MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Vikas Sharma and Mr. Laxman, Advs. For The Respondent : Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, official liquidator. GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral) 1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 28th May, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Co. Application No.01/2010 whereby th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as fully aware of the liability of the company to the appellant and had interdicted any claim for the amounts due and payable. 6. The above communication from the office of the official liquidator shows that the appellant had made a claim of which the official liquidator was aware. In fact the official liquidator had directed the appellant to resubmit the same that claims were invited by him. Thus, the appellant had made the requirement of Rule 156 and in the given facts and circumstances, in fact the appellant was required to be paid interest on the contractual rate till the date of payment. This fact is completely escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge resulting in passing of the order dated 28th May, 2013. 7. The company court passed the order dated 16th February, 2005 directing the official liquidator to invite claims from the creditors and workmen of the company. The official liquidator took steps and claims were invited by advertisement issued on the 25th of March, 2005. It appears that 28 claims were received by the office of the official liquidator. 8. For the first time the office of the official liquidator issued a notice dated 24th October, 2005 under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relook, the official liquidator arrived at a conclusion that excess amount of ₹ 4,81,169/- had been paid to the appellant. It is only thereafter that the official liquidator addressed the letter dated 5th of October, 2009 calling upon the appellant to attend the office. 16. It appears that the appellant s husband visited the office of the official liquidator and informed him about the interest liability and claimed that the amount had been rightly calculated and paid to her. Despite these submissions, letter dated 24th of November and 24th of December, 2009 were issued by the office of the official liquidator calling upon the appealnt to return the amount of ₹ 4,81,169/-. 17. On the 21st of January, 2010, the Company Court passed an order with a direction to the official liquidator to file a status report and to seek the assistance of a Chartered Accountant if necessary in the matter. 18. It is claimed before us on behalf of the official liquidator that in terms of these directions of the court M/s Rai and company s Chartered Accountant was appointed for scrutiny of claims by letter dated 15th of February, 2010 and the claims filed were handed over to this Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt between company and the creditors as well as their proceedings having been conducted behind her back in violation of principles of natural justice. These objections were considered and rejected by the learned Company Judge by the impugned order dated 28th of May, 2013. 23. The appellant challenges this order on the very grounds on which the application was contested. It is additionally urged that the learned Single Judge has erroneously calculated simple interest @ 4% per annum on the deposit as being payable beyond the date of maturity and has contradictorily directed refund to the amount of ₹ 6,13,408/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum 24. The above narration of facts would show that the claim of the appellant based on the agreements with the company stood carefully considered by the official liquidator and found admissible to the extent of ₹ 7,42,509/-. This amount includes claimed interest which had been carefully scrutinized by the official liquidator. There is no dispute with regard to deposits made by the appellant. 25. The report of the official liquidator with regard to the 28 claims, including the claims that of the appellant, had been scrutiniz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
