TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute with the proposition that the welfare legislation will have to be liberally construed and the payment of gratuity would be a part of welfare legislation as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association [ 2009 (12) TMI 1024 - SUPREME COURT] . In the said case, the question before the Apex Court was whether the retired employees of the appellant Bank therein were entitled for the payment of gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. In that context, the Apex Court had observed that the said remedial statute will have to be liberally construed. In the present case, the dispute would be about the priority of claim, whether the claim of the petitioner bank would have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. For respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. S.S. Pawar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 62. JUDGMENT (PER : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, heard finally. 2. Petitioner is the Apex Bank. Respondent No.1 Sugar Factory had obtained loan from the petitioner bank. Respondent No.1 executed security documents, such as mortgage of agricultural land, plant and machinery, hypothecation of movables and pledge of the goods. The petitioner has the status of a secured creditor. The account of respondent No.1 became nonperforming asset. The petitioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2 and 44/3 were attached on 5th August, 2010 by respondent No.4. The petitioners have assailed the said action in the present writ petition. 3. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a secured creditor. It had already taken over the possession of the secured assets, including land bearing Gat Nos.44/1, 44/2 and 44/3 on 31st October, 2008 and a public notice as required under the provisions of SARFAESI Act was also issued in local newspapers. The learned Senior Counsel submits that once action under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act has been initiated, respondent Nos.3 and 4 could not have exercised their jurisdiction on the said secured assets. The petitioner Bank being a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me would supersede the claim of the petitioner Bank. The amount is of gratuity, due and payable to the employees of respondent No.1 that has remained unpaid. The learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court :( (i) Allahabad Bank and another Vs. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association 2010(1) ALL MR 941 (ii) Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited Vs. Haryana Concast Limited and another (2016)4 SCC 47 (iii) Employees Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. O.L. Of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited 2012(1) ALL MR 923 (S.C.) 5. We have considered the submissions canvased by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. The factual matrix, as narrated supra, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority shall, on an application made to it in this behalf by the aggrieved person, issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall recover the same together with compound interest thereon as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled thereto. 9. The amount payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The Apex Court in the case of SICOM Limited and another (supra) has considered the priority of realisation of dues i.e. Crown debts visavis secured debts of a secured creditor and it was held that the debts of the secured creditor will have a priority over the Crown debts. 10. The judgment in the case of Employees Provident Fund Commissioner (supra) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association (supra). In the said case, the question before the Apex Court was whether the retired employees of the appellant Bank therein were entitled for the payment of gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. In that context, the Apex Court had observed that the said remedial statute will have to be liberally construed. 13. In the present case, the dispute would be about the priority of claim, whether the claim of the petitioner bank would have a priority over the claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act visavis the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The Apex Court in the case of SICOM Limited and another (supra) has unequivocally held that considering the statutory right of the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
