- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel Mr. J.K. Chanda appearing for the applicant-bank and the learned counsel Mr. Vikas Balia appearing for the Official Liquidator. By way of this application, the applicant-bank essentially seeks to question the notice of rejection of a part of its claim by the Official Liquidator in relation to company in liquidation, Kishangarh Fabrics Ltd. The Official Liquidator after admitting the claim of the applicant-bank to the tune of Rs.45,82,948/-, has rejected the other part of the claim to the extent of Rs.40,37,173.70; and has served the notice while stating as under: - "TAKE NOTICE that as the Official Liquidator of the above-named company, I have this day rejected your claim of Rs.40,37,173.70 on the following grounds: - (1) Interest amounting to rs.40,11,173.70 pertaining to the period from 19.10.2002 to 31.04.2009 has been rejected on the ground that it is pertaining to the period after the winding up and the same is not admissible in the winding up. (2) The Advocates fees amounting to Rs.11,000/- paid to Shri J.K. Chawla and Rs.15,000/- paid to Shri Y.P. Garg is not admissible. Since neither permission of the Official Liquidator for the payment has been sought nor any court order for that payment has been filed alongwith claim."
(2.) IT is contended that the order remains unjustified and the Official Liquidator has erroneously disallowed the part of the claim as made by the applicant-bank. It is further submitted that inspite of the earlier orders of this Court dated 21.10.2008 and 05.05.2009, the Official Liquidator has not deposited the amount towards the debts of the company in liquidation. On behalf of the Official Liquidator, a detailed reply has been filed stating, inter alia, that per Section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') read with Rule 154 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 ('the Rules'), the bank is entitled to claim its dues only upto the date of winding up; and any claim made in respect of interest after the date of winding up order is not admissible. Similarly, it is submitted, the expenditure incurred and payment made by the creditor after the date of order of winding up without the approval of the Official Liquidator or without permission of the Court are also not admissible. The Official Liquidator has given out the bifurcation of the admissible claim to the tune of Rs.45,82,948/- in the manner that it includes the principal amount as per certificate issued by the DRT with interest @ 10% p.a. upto the date of winding up order i.e., 18.10.2002 and costs awarded by the DRT. It is, however, submitted that the claim of interest amounting to Rs.40,11,173.70 for the period 19.10.2002 to 31.04.2009 has been rejected on the ground that it pertains to the period after the date of the order of the winding up and is not admissible as a priority claim per Rule 154 of the Rules of 1959. The learned counsel Mr. Chanda appearing for the applicant-bank submits that apart from disallowing the part of the claim of the applicant, the Official Liquidator, despite having realized the amount from sale of the assets of the company in liquidation, has not yet disbursed the amount so received; and this omission is causing heavy loss to the bank. The learned counsel Mr. Balia appearing for the Official Liquidator submits, on the other hand, that the Official Liquidator is in the process of adjudication of the claims of the workmen of the company in liquidation and, as several such claims have been received and are required to be adjudicated, the process of distribution of amount cannot be taken up before final adjudication of such claims. Mr. Balia further submits that after adjudication of all the relevant claims, the process of disbursement would be taken up and conducted in accordance with law; and, for payment of subsequent interest, has referred to the Rule 179 of the Rules of 1959 to submit that in the event of there being a surplus after payment in full of all the claims admitted to proof, the creditors whose proofs have been admitted, shall be paid interest from the date of winding up order up to the date of order of declaration of the final dividend, at the rate prescribed in the rule after adjustment against the amount of dividends declared.
(3.) AS at present, suffice it appears to observe that the Official Liquidator cannot be said to have committed any illegality in declining to admit the claim in relation to the interest from 19.10.2002 to 31.04.2009, being the period after the date of the order of the winding up; and in relation to the other expenditure as incurred without taking permission from the Court or approval of the Official Liquidator. Of course, the Official Liquidator would be making final payment in accordance with law after the adjudication of all the claims. Though the learned counsel Mr. Chanda cannot be said to be unjustified in making the submissions that the recovered money is with the Official Liquidator and unnecessary delay in further processing of the matter should be curbed and the matter should be brought to finality at the earliest so as to obviate against the losses likely to be suffered by the bank but then, the submissions on behalf of the Official Liquidator also cannot be ignored that several claims of the workmen have been received and they are required to be adjudicated upon.;