TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Company Judge dismissed its application, to release the payment out of the amount deposited by sale of sugar stock of M/s. Northland Sugar Complex Limited, Dasuya (under liquidation) (for brevity "the Company"). 2. The brief facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, are that the Company was dealing in sugarcane products. The farmers/canegrowers had supplied the sugarcane to the said Company, but it did not make the payments to them. One Shalini Industrial Corporation supplied the pipe fittings and valves to the Company, but it also failed to make the payment of the articles, which necessitated Shalini Industrial Corporation to file a Company Petition, on 17-4-1996, for winding up the Compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... canegrowers, invoking the provisions of section 475 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") read with rules 150, 151 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules"), inter alia, with the following prayers :- "(a)That the loan of Rs. 15.72 crores was released by the State of Punjab in public interest as this Hon'ble Court was dealing with the matter by taking suo motu action with regard to payment of dues to farmers; therefore, it has the first claim over the funds lying with this Hon'ble Court on account of sale of sugar. (b)That the sugar and other bye-products were sold by a committee constituted by this Hon'ble Court which resulted in denying the right to the farmers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Company, have to be determined, as on the date of order of winding up of the Company. Resultantly, no claim can be allowed, after the date of winding up of the Company and, thus, the said claim of PSIDC is not maintainable, under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. The learned Company Judge dismissed the application of the PSIDC, vide impugned order dated 24-8-2006 (Annexure A3). 7. The State of Punjab through the PSIDC did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure A3) and filed the present company appeal. 8. We have heard the learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on different dates, in order to protect the interest of the canegrowers and the public at large. In pursuance of the order, a Sale Committee was constituted and the hypothecated stocks were sold. On 25-2-2005, the following order was passed by this Court in Court on its Own Motion's case (supra) : "Vide this application filed by State of Punjab, it has been prayed that the sum of Rs. 8 crores (approximately) that has been deposited under the orders of this Court, should be released to the State of Punjab. It is conceded before us by Mr. Bains and Mr. Takkar that in the meanwhile, the farmers for whose benefit this sum had been deposited, have been disturbed their dues. We accordingly, issue a direction that the sum of Rs. 8 crores (approx....