Rajiv Sarin vs M/S Durable Electricals Ltd
2011 Latest Caselaw 6068 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 12th December, 2011.

+                            CO. APP. 77/2011

%          RAJIV SARIN                                    .......Appellant
                             Through:      Mr. Mayank Kumar, Adv.

                                        Versus

    M/S DURABLE ELECTRICALS LTD.            ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Mayank Goel, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                    JUDGMENT

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The Ex-Director of the Company in liquidation assails the order dated

29.09.2011 of the learned Company Judge directing the Ex-Director to make

balance payment of `12,44,630/- on account of Employees Provident Fund

dues to the Official Liquidator within a period of six weeks. The appellant

had earlier, on 15.04.2010 given an undertaking to the learned Company

Judge that the demand of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

(RPFC), as scrutinized by the Official Liquidator and communicated to the

appellant, shall be paid. In the order dated 12.08.2010, it is recorded that

certain clarifications were still awaited from the Employees Provident Fund

Organization (EPFO) and as such directions for payment of any amount to

the EPFO were deferred and liberty was granted to the Official Liquidator to

seek appropriate orders in this regard on receipt of full clarification from the

EPFO. However, the order dated 07.10.2010 records that the claim of EPFO

of `19,44,623/- stood admitted by the Official Liquidator and accordingly

the appellant was directed to pay the said amount. On 18.08.2011, it was

observed that since the claim of RPFC has already been adjudicated by the

Official Liquidator, the only way to challenge the same was by way of an

appeal and the appellant was given liberty to challenge the determination of

liability by the Official Liquidator by filing an appeal.

2. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, on the contention of the counsel for the

appellant that the claim of RPFC had not been finalized by the Official

Liquidator, we called for Mr. Mayank Goel, Advocate for the Official

Liquidator, who on instructions states that in fact the claim of the RPFC has

not been finalized by the Official Liquidator as yet.

3. In view of the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the Official

Liquidator, the direction to the appellant to make the balance payment of

`12,44,623/- is set aside and the Official Liquidator is directed to finalize the

said claim. The appellant in terms of his undertaking shall however be liable

to pay the amount so finalized by the Official Liquidator. It is further

clarified that if the appellant remains dissatisfied, he will be entitled to take

proceedings under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952.

The appeal is disposed of.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 12, 2011 'gsr'..