TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the applicant's Advocate Mr. G.C. Singh, Mr. Dwarkadas, the learned Senior Counsel has made the following statement :- "(1) All workmen employed with the company as on the date of closure viz., 25-7-1984, shall receive :- (a )All legal/statutory dues including unpaid wages, gratuity, retrenchment compensation, etc. up to date of closure. (b )Interest at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. from 25-7-1984 to 30-5-2009. (c )Ex gratia compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 per worker. This includes all workers of any dispensation who were with the company as on the date of closure. (2) For any workers who were not employed with the company as on the date of closure, they will be free to lodge their claims for all legal/statutory dues and the Official L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in terms of the minutes of the order to which Ms. Jane Cox and Mr. G.C. Singh, learned Advocates appearing for the applicants have no objection. 4. Mr. Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the State Bank of India has reiterated his objections which were earlier canvassed by him before this Court [Coram : A.M. Khanwilkar, J.] and which are already dealt with by this Court by its orders dated 14-5-2009 and 24-6-2009. 5. M/s. Shreenivas Cotton Mills (Mill) had earlier taken a loan of about Rs. 3 crores from the State Bank of India and by way of a second charge had mortgaged their immovable properties (land on which the Mills were situated) to the State Bank of India. A decree dated 26-3-2003 was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in favour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicants rights and remedy as available under the law including the right to Appeal. Therefore, in my view, the claim of the State Bank of India is fully protected and the objections raised by the Bank lacks bona fides. When this Court pointed out to Mr. Rao, the learned Advocate for State Bank of India that the Bank was fully protected and what further protection was expected by the Bank, Mr. Rao contended that in the event of the revival of the Mill, the Mill will be employing new workmen and consequently on the land mortgaged to the Bank, further rights will be created. This contention of Mr. Rao deserves to be forthwith rejected because even when the charge was initially created in favour of the State Bank of India in 1982, the Mill was....