Onkar Dutta Gutti vs Official Liquidator
2007 Latest Caselaw 1883 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13th August, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application of the appellant, which was registered as CA No.588/2000. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal practically revolves around the issue with regard to payment of interest to the appellant.

2. Mr.Onkar Dutta Gutti had entered into an agreement with M/s Globe Diesels Aid Pvt. Ltd. whereby he agreed to purchase certain land of the company. However, after the aforesaid agreement to sell was executed, the company went into liquidation. The land in question, which was the subject matter of the agreement to sell between the appellant and the company in liquidation, was also acquired by the State of Haryana. The State of Haryana awarded compensation of Rs.2,87,761.50 paise which included Rs.21,332.50 paise payable to one Shri Madan Gopal, whose land was also acquired simultaneously, but was not the subject matter of agreement to sell between Mr.O.D.Gutti and the company in liquidation.

3. As the company had gone into liquidation, disputes arose as to who is entitled to receive the compensation. The dispute raised was as to whether it is the applicant who has to receive the compensation as he had purchased the land or whether it should go to the Official Liquidator as the company has been wound up and has gone into liquidation.

4. As a dispute was raised, the learned Company Court passed an order on 8th November, 1977 directing deposit of the compensation amount with Punjab National Bank with a further direction that it would be kept in a fixed deposit account by the Official Liquidator. It was also observed that the principal amount along with interest accrued thereon would be payable upon final determination of the matter to the party who succeeds in the High Court. The applicant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of the amount of compensation as according to him the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was not sufficient. On the said petition filed, compensation was enhanced by Rs.19,29,435.19 paise, which the State of Haryana was to pay. A direction was accordingly issued that the said amount be deposited in the State Bank of India, Gurgaon in a fixed deposit. The situation, therefore, was that initially an amount of Rs.2,87,761.50 paise was kept with the Punjab National Bank and enhanced compensation of Rs.19,29,435.19p was kept in a fixed deposit account with State Bank of India.

5. When the matter was pending in this Court, the appellant as also the Official Liquidator entered into a settlement and in that regard an application was filed in the Company Court on 3rd February, 2000 incorporating therein the terms of settlement. In the said settlement, it was decided that after taking out the share of Mr.Madan Gopal, the balance amount under the fixed deposits is to be shared between the appellant and the Official Liquidator in the ratio of 55:45 respectively. The amount was lying in two banks for a long period and on ascertaining from the bank, it was disclosed and was so written in the compromise petition that an amount of Rs.1,22,99,884/- is lying with State Bank of India whereas an amount of Rs.9,34,210/- is lying with the Punjab National Bank. Consequently, in the settlement it was agreed that the amount lying in the State Bank of India should be distributed in the ratio of 55:45 respectively, whereas from the amount lying with Punjab National Bank, the share of Mr.Madan Gopal was to be taken out first and the balance was to be distributed in the ratio of 55:45.

6. The learned Company Judge passed an order on the joint application to the following effect:

Enhanced compensation for the entire land was worked out to Rs.19,29,435/-. The same was deposited in State Bank of India, Gurgaon, on 20th March, 1979 under orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court. As on 31st March, 2000, an amount of Rs.1,22,99,884/- would be available for apportionment. The amount lying in the State Bank of India, Gurgaon and Punjab National Bank are to be apportioned between the parties including Smt.Shanta Kumari. A sum of Rs.9,34,210/- was lying in the Punjab National Bank as on September, 1999.

It is agreed between the parties that a sum of Rs.8,28,000/- shall be paid from the deposit in Punjab National Bank to Smt.Shanta Kumari as full and final settlement of her claim. The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,22,99,884/- shall be apportioned in the ratio of 45% to the O.L. and 55% to Mr.O.D.Gutti. The balance amount in Punjab National Bank shall also be shared in the aforesaid ratio between Mr.Gutti and the O.L. The taxation, if any, shall be borne by the parties in the ratio in which they have received the aforesaid amount. The O.L. shall make appropriate application in the light of this order for release of amount from the State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank in the aforesaid manner and the banks shall disburse the amount as aforesaid. The application shall be moved by the O.L., within two weeks from the date of this order. The banks shall disburse the amount in the aforesaid manner within a week thereafter.

7. There is no dispute raised with regard to the amount of Rs.8,28,000/- payable to Smt.Shanta Kumari, the widow of Mr.Madan Gopal. So far the balance amount is concerned, the same was apportioned between the appellant and the Official Liquidator in the ratio of 55:45. The Official Liquidator was also to make an appropriate application for release of the amount from State Bank of India and Punjab and National Bank. Later on, however, it was found that the amount lying in the State Bank of India was Rs.19,64,246/-, which is more than the figures indicated in the compromise petition.

8. In that view of the matter, the Official Liquidator worked out the share of the appellant and paid him his share of compensation i.e. 55% of the entire amount lying with the State Bank of India i.e. Rs.19,64,246/- which is not indicated in the compromise petition. Likewise, after paying Rs.8,28,000/- to Smt.Shanta Kumari from the amount lying in Punjab National Bank, 55% share of the appellant from the balance sum of Rs.1,06,210/- (Rs.9,34,210 - Rs.8,28,000/-) was paid.

9. The appellant thereafter took up a plea before the learned Company Judge that some withdrawals were made by the Official Liquidator, which were unauthorised, unexplained and without justification. It was submitted that the said withdrawals could not have been made by the Official Liquidator and if these withdrawal were not made, the amount lying with the Punjab National Bank would have been more than Rs.9,34,210/-. It was submitted that in that event, the appellant would have received more money than what was given to him under the agreement which is given effect to by the learned Company Judge.

10. The aforesaid contentions were refuted by the Official Liquidator by pointing out that before filing the joint application the parties inspected the records and thereafter having satisfied themselves with the deposits available, it was agreed that the money available in the account could be distributed in a proportion of 55:45. It was stated that after receiving the money in terms of the settlement, the appellant cannot turn back and state that he is required to be paid more amount than what was paid to him under the agreement.

11. The aforesaid contentions raised were considered by the learned Company Judge indepth. After considering the pleas of the appellant and on perusal of the records, it was held by the learned Company Judge that the contentions raised by the appellant are mis-placed and without any merit. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

12. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed on which we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The mode of distribution of the money lying in the fixed deposits was passed by the learned Company Judge on the basis of a joint application filed by the parties. Before filing the said application, the parties ascertained the amount lying in the two bank accounts and mentioned about the same by giving particulars thereof in the joint application filed. Subsequently, when an additional amount was found lying deposited, it was also distributed according to the ratio. It appears that the appellant has become greedy and is now raising a bogus demand for payment of further amounts, which, according to him, were withdrawn illegally by the Official Liquidator. The compromise application was filed by the parties being fully aware of the position of the amount lying in two joint accounts and after verifying the records of the two deposits in the banks. Consequent thereof same has been given effect to. The learned Company Judge has passed an order in terms of which amount as mentioned in the application has been distributed. The said amount has been received. Accordingly, the contentions raised that the said amount which was withdrawn by the Official Liquidator from the said account was unauthorised if accepted and enquiry ordered, the same would lead to a roving and fishing inquiry, which should not be permitted. The learned Company Judge was justified in rejecting such a prayer, which is also made before this Court. The parties verified the records of the two deposits lying in the bank and thereafter agreed to share the money as existed in the two accounts in a particular manner. The appellant now cannot be allowed to change their stand and ask for making a fresh enquiry in the nature of fishing enquiry about withdrawals allegedly made.

13. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Company Judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.