Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Bank against order 11.3.2010 passed by the Company Judge allowing application of the workmen for release of a sum of Rs. 6,39,538/ -.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant -bank fairly states that amount paid to the workmen is less than their entitlement even on pari -passubasis. His only grievance is against the finding recorded by learned Company Judge that bank will be entitled only to a sum of Rs.18,23,13,622/ -on the assumption that bank had given up their claim before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 which could not remain binding on scheme proposed not having been put in operation. Since for deciding the amount payable to the workmen as mentioned above, it is not necessary to finally decide this objection of the bank and the learned Company Judge is yet to finally decide the claims on winding up, learned Counsel for the parties agree that this question may be left open to be decided by the learned Company Judge at appropriate stage and the observations in the impugned order on this aspect may not be treated as final.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this appeal is disposed of with liberty to the parties to contest the above issue of extent of entitlement of the bank and the workmen before the Company Judge.;