Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) THE sole question involved in the present application is whether secured creditor can ask for interim disbursement of part of his claim pending adjudication of its claim alongwith other secured creditors and workmen in terms of Section 529 -A and 530 of Companies Act read with Rules 147 to 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
(2.) FOLLOWING are the admitted facts of the case: M/s Punjab Wireless System Limited a Company registered under the Companies Act, was ordered to be wound by this Court vide order dated 1.2.2001 passed in C.P. No. 226 of 1999. Official Liquidator was appointed as Liquidator to take over the possession of the assets and property of the Company. Sanction was granted in terms of Rule 272 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 to the Official Liquidator to sell the assets and properties of the Company in Liquidation by inviting offers through advertisement in newspapers. On the receipt of tenders by the Official Liquidator and opening thereof inter -se biding was conducted on 20.4.2006 and sale of 21 lots (fixed asset) was confirmed in favour of M/s Sun Group Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., M/s S.K. Disposers and M/s LOIL Continental Foods Ltd. For Rs. 3016 lac on 20.4.2006. Another amount of Rs. 860 lacs was received by the Official Liquidator in respect of sale of remaining 3 lots viz. lots Nos. 17, 19 & 20 in pursuance of order dated 8.8.2006 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 3490 of 2006 arising out of S.L.P. No. 24032 -33 of 2005 titled as Punjab Wireless Systems Employee's Union v. Winsom Yarns Ltd. and Ors. An amount of Rs. 3876 lacs being the sale proceeds comprising fixed assets stands deposited with the Official Liquidator. The applicant (IFCL) filed CA No. 485 of 2005 seeking interim disbursement. This application was disposed of vide order dated 23.11.2006 on the basis of an order of the same date passed in C.A. No. 826 of 2006. This Court made following observations in order dated 23.11.2006: The present applications by the auction purchaser who has purchased the assets of the company in liquidation in an auction conducted by this Court. The applicant has sought clarification that the assets of the company in liquidation has been sold to the applicant is not liable for any past dues of the company in liquidation. The applicant has relied upon para No. 7 of the advertisement to the effect that the liability of any tax, octroi and duty etc. which arise for sale, shall be of the purchaser and not of the company in liquidation. However, the previous liabilities of the company will not pass to purchaser of the assets/goods. The applicant has also sought direction to the Official Liquidator to apportion, invite and settle the claims of the creditors expeditiously. After hearing learned Counsel for the applicant for some time, I do not find that any clarification is required in respect of the auction proceedings in respect of the assets of the company in liquidation. If any creditor including Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has raised any claim against the auction purchaser, it shall be open to the auction purchaser to dispute such claim or action in appropriate proceedings but the application to seek clarification is not maintainable after the sale is confirmed. No lis is pending in respect of sale of the property of the company in liquidation which may confer jurisdiction on the Company Court to entertain the present application. Therefore, no case for issuance of any clarification is made out. However, Shri S.N. Mishra, Official Liquidator, who is present in the Court states that he shall take expeditious steps to apportion the sale proceedings derived from the sale of the assets of the Punjab Wireless Systems Limited (in liquidation) as well as he shall invite and settle the dues of the creditors of the company in liquidation expeditiously. In view of the said statement, I do not find any merit in the present application. The same is disposed of with a direction to the Official Liquidator to apportion the sale proceeds of the assets of the company in liquidation and to invite and settle the claims of the creditors at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from today. The company application stands disposed of accordingly. It is claimed that the IFCI has first charge over the fixed assets alongwith the Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. whereas Canara Bank as lead Bank in consortium along with Indian Overseas Bank, State Bank of Patiala and Deutsche Bank have a second charge on the fixed assets. The workmen also have the charge over the sale proceeds in accordance with law. It is also admitted position that IFCI has initiated separate proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chandigarh against the Company in liquidation and guarantors for recovery and the claim of the IFCI for an amount of Rs. 2745 lacs as on 29.9.2000 stands decreed vide judgment dated 31.8.2001 and execution proceedings are pending before the Recovery Officer.
(3.) THE application, however, has been seriously resisted by the Official Liquidator in the written statement filed and during the course of the arguments. It is contended that interim disbursement is impermissible. The sale proceeds are to be distributed amongst the creditors, workmen etc. in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules 147 to 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules. It is further stated that the claims have to be adjudicated and the same have to be scrutinized by the Chartered Accountant to be appointed with the sanction of the Company Court and claims can only be disbursed on pro rata basis on final adjudication and not on piece meal basis.;