TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kers' claim was re-verified by the chartered accountant and the net claim of the workers as found admissible b y the CA is of Rs.32,24,097.89 2. Heard Mr. Jani for the applicant, Mr. Panesar for respondent No. 1-bank and Mr. Bhatt for respondent No. 2. 3. It appears that the order for winding up of the company in liquidation is passed on September 12, 1986. After the winding up order, Central Bank of India respondent No. 1 has filed the Suit No. 1 of 1988 on March 10, 1988. There is no order for express leave granted by this court produced on record, however, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent' No. 1 bank is that in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank reported in [2000] 101....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red decision of the apex court in the case of Allahabad Bank [2000] 101 Comp. Cas. 64 ; [2000] 4 SCC 406, the company court will have no jurisdiction for disbursement of the amount and such power would vest with the recovery officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per section 19(19) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the RDB Act"). It was also submitted that the workers have lodged the claim and the official liquidator is also joined as a party in the said proceedings and therefore, such question of disbursement can be decided by the recovery officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and this court may not exercise the powers under the Companies Act or may not direct for su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Even if it is considered; that no leave of the company court was required for filing of the suit in the year 1988 after the order of winding up in view of the aforesaid decision of the apex court in the case of Allahabad Bank [2000] 101 Comp. Cas. 64 [2000] 4 SCC 406, then also the second distinguishing circumstance is that in the year 1988 when the suit came to be filed and the jurisdiction. of the Tribunal under RDB Act was invoked, section 19(19) was not on the statute. Merely because the property is sold by appointment of the receiver at the later stage, i.e. , on September 21, 2001, after the insertion of section 19(19) of the RDB Act, it can hardly be contended that the powers could be exercised' by the recovery officer of the DRT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; [2000] 4 SCC 406, are considered, the jurisdiction under section 19(19) of the Tribunal for distribution of the amount of sale proceeds would not be available for disbursement under section 529A of the Companies Act. Therefore, merely because the workers have made certain claim in the proceedings before the Tribunal or that the official liquidator-is representing the company in liquidation for defending- the suit would not be a ground to reject the report submitted by the official liquidator for seeking directions for disbursement to the workers' claim. 10. It also deserves to be recorded that the peculiar circumstance in the present case are that the suit has been filed by a financial institution in capacity as the secured creditor wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he workers and so far as the claim of secured creditor, which is the subject- matter-of the suit is concerned, the amount may be retained by-the Tribunal under the RDB Act. It appears to the court that in order to give effect to the real spirit of the provisions of section 529A of th e Companies Act, by balancing the rights of the secured creditors as well as-of the workers, it would be just and proper to direct the Tribunal to deposit the amount which may fall due as the share of the workers under section 529A of the Act, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 1-bank to, that extent does not deserve to be accepted. 11. As such the amount claimed by respondent No. 1-bank in the suit on March 10, 1988, is Rs. 1,32,4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istribution. 12. Hence, the following order : (1) The amount of Rs. 10 lakhs from the available fund in the proceedings of Suit No. 1 of 1988 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall be deposited, with the official liquidator. The official liquidator- shall place the copy of the order before the Tribunal for appropriate compliance. The aforesaid process of depositing the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs shall be completed within the period of four weeks from the date of production of the order before the Tribunal by the official liquidator. (2) After the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs is deposited with the official liquidator, the official liquidator shall disburse the amount to the workers at pro rata proportionate basis by A/c. payee cheque or ....