TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial Liquidator be directed to disburse the outstanding amount of security charges to the applicant. In both these applications, the issue involved is similar and, therefore, the same are taken up for hearing together and decided by this common order. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Navin Pahwa for the applicant in Company Application No.242 of 2012, learned advocate Ms. Meena Vyas for the applicant in Company Application No.40 of 2014 and learned advocate Ms. Amee Yajnik in both the matters for respondent-Official Liquidator. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Pahwa submitted that this Court passed an order on 24.9.2003 in Company Application No.104 of 2002 by which the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Provisional Liquidator....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adhoc amount of Rs. 2 lacs towards security expenses subject to further orders. Thereafter, no payments of security charges were coming forth from the office of the Official Liquidator and therefore the applicant requested this Court during the course of proceedings of OLR No.110 of 2007 to relieve the applicant from the assignment of the security agency. Accordingly, by order dated 7.5.2008, this Court permitted the applicant to be relieved from the work of the security agency. The Official Liquidator was required to hand over the security work to another agency by 31.5.2008. The applicant thereafter was relieved from the work of the security agency with effect from 26.5.2008. It is the case of the applicant that as on the date of handing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted to the Official Liquidator. A copy of the said report was also provided to the applicant. After referring to the relevant documents and the report, learned advocate Mr. Pahwa submitted that so far as the applicant is concerned, it is admitted fact that the applicant handed over different sites in May, 2008. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the applicant, the applicant has no objection for reduction of the amount which is determined by GITCO as the valuation of missing items during the period when the applicant was the security agency. He, therefore, submitted that this application be allowed and the Official Liquidator be directed to pay the outstanding amount for security charges to the applicant afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficial Liquidator be directed to pay unpaid security bill amount of Rs. 9,62,006/- of the applicant to the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Makarpura, Vadodara-II. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Yagnik submitted that during the pendency of this application and during the pendency of Company Application No.242 of 2012, the Official Liquidator has filed various reports from time to time. However, the attention of this court is drawn to the report dated 20.3.2015 filed by the Official Liquidator. In the said report, it has been stated that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court from time to time, the Official Liquidator appointed GITCO to assess loss/damage caused to the assets of the company. GI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecurity agency. As per the report of GITCO, the amount of theft quantified is Rs. 1,79,400/-. Therefore, after adjusting the said amount, the balance amount of Rs. 7,49,070/- is required to be paid to the said applicant. 10. Learned advocate Ms. Yajnik submitted that the Official Liquidator is having fund of approximately Rs. 81 lacs in the account of the company in liquidation and, therefore, this Court may direct the Official Liquidator to consider the payment of outstanding bills of the applicant-security agency after adjusting the loss of the assets as per the report given by the GITCO-government approved valuer as per the averments made in paragraph 7 of the report filed by the Official Liquidator. 11. I have considered the arguments....