THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
COMPANY APPEAL No. 1 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
This Company Appeal is filed against the order of the Official Liquidator dt.05-08-2016 rejecting the claim made by the appellant herein.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator.
3. The appellant claims that he had rendered professional services to the Company-in-Liquidation while it was running during the period 1997- 98 and in respect of the professional services so rendered for the Company-in-Liquidation when it was in hay, he had raised bills for professional services for dealing with the matters arising under the APGST and CST Acts.
4. The appellant further contends that when the services were rendered, the proceedings in connection with which the appellant had raised bills were sent to the Company and the same remained unpaid as a result of which the appellant had approached the Official Liquidator lodging his claim for settlement since the Company had went into liquidation subsequently.
2
5. The appellant further contends that the fact of he appearing on behalf of the Company-in-Liquidation cannot be disputed for the fact that in the bills raised for the professional services rendered, he had clearly mentioned as to when and in what connection the said professional services were rendered and the same have been sent to Company at the relevant point of time and the same remained unpaid.
6. Learned counsel for appellant, while questioning the impugned order passed by the Official Liquidator, would contend that by the impugned order, the Official Liquidator had called upon the appellant to substantiate the claims being made by the appellant after much water has flown and the Company went into liquidation while all the records of the Company-in-Liquidation were taken over by the Official Liquidator.
7. Learned Official Liquidator has filed a report before this Court dt.22-09-2022.
8. By the said report as was filed into this Court, it is stated therein that the appellant was issued of Form-68 on 25-08-2015 advising him to produce further evidence in support of his claim dt.04-09-2015; that in spite of service of notice, the appellant has not furnished any documents substantiating the services rendered to the Company-in-Liquidation and also agreement by which the payment was agreed upon between the 3 parties; and that the bills submitted by the appellant were not enough to establish the dues payable by the Company or confirm the services rendered by the appellant.
9. I have taken note of the respective submissions.
10. Though the Official Liquidator had stated that the appellant had not substantiated the claim by producing any agreement for availing of his services, as per the Advocates Act, 1961, when vakalat is signed by a party engaging the services of such Advocate, and in pursuance thereof, the said Advocate having appeared in the proceedings on behalf of the party engaging him by rendering of professional services, the same would have to be construed as an Agreement. Hence, the claim of the Official Liquidator in this regard is rejected.
11. Insofar as non-substantiation of the claims of the appellant are concerned, a perusal of the bills submitted to the Company at the relevant point of time i.e. for the year 1997-98 would show that the same have been addressed to the Company which would imply that the same were received by the proper Office of the Company at the relevant point of time and the same would form part of the record and available with the Company.
4
12. Further, a perusal of the bills raised and the covering letter enclosed thereto would show that the appellant had mentioned the proceedings numbers in connection with his services availed by the Company-in-Liquidation. If only the Official Liquidator has any reason to disbelieve the said information furnished by the appellant to the Company at the relevant point of time to be correct, it is for the Official Liquidator to cause verification of the same by approaching the concerned Authorities and cannot call upon the appellant to establish the said fact.
13. In view of the same, the said objection taken by the Official Liquidator is invalid and therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings, by which the claim of the appellant is rejected, cannot be sustained.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the Official Liquidator is directed to adjudicate the claim of the appellant and make necessary payment thereof as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
5
15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand closed.
____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 23.09.2022 Vsv