Delhi High Court
Employee Provident Fund ... vs M/S.Durable Electrical Pvt. ... on 16 April, 2015
Author: Gita Mittal
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.APP. 61/2014 & CMs No.19805/2014 & 19807/2014
% Date of decision: 16th April, 2015
EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Balraj Diwan, Adv.
versus
M/S.DURABLE ELECTRICAL PVT. LTD.& ORS. & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bahl, Official
Liquidator
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner assails the
order dated 20th February, 2014 passed by the learned Company
Judge accepting the application under Section 481 of the
Companies Act, 1956 and dissolving the company. The
submission of the appellant is that against its claimed dues of
Rs.32,00,000/-, the Official Liquidator has adjudicated and held
that sum of Rs.19,44,630/- only was due and payable by the
company.
2. It is submitted before us that this adjudication of the
claim of the appellant by the Official Liquidator is contrary to
the dues of the company as per the records of the appellant
which were placed before the Liquidator. The record placed
before us shows that after scrutiny, the official liquidator has
concluded that Rs.19,44,630/- was payable to the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner and the sum of Rs.3,95,507/-
was payable to the Employees State Insurance Corporation.
These claims have been adjudicated upon by the official
liquidator as back as on 3rd May, 2012. During the winding up
proceedings, out of the amounts of the company available with
the Official Liquidator, disbursement to the tune of
Rs.19,44,630/- was made by the Official Liquidator which was
accepted without any objection.
3. We find that no appeal against the quantification by the
Liquidator of the dues of the appellant was ever filed by it. On
the contrary, in the order dated 10th May, 2012 passed by the
learned Company Judge in the presence of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad, the liabilities of
company towards amounts as payable to the appellant as well as
to the Employees State Insurance Corporation were directed
upon to be discharged by ex-Directors. Learned counsels
appearing for the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as
well as the Official Liquidator were directed to provide
inspection of the relevant records to the ex-directors.
4. It appears that so far as the winding up petition (Co.
Petition No.190/1994) is concerned, the Official Liquidator had
filed the application under Section 481 of the Companies Act,
1956 which was registered as CA No.1890/2013 seeking
dissolution of company. The Official Liquidator had informed
the court by way of this application that the company did not
have any funds available and all claims filed had been
adjudicated. The appellant does not dispute this position as
well, though challenge is laid in the appeal to the settlement of
dues claimed by the appellant.
5. In this background, the order dated 20th February, 2014
passed by the learned Company Judge accepting the prayer
made in CA No.1890/2013 and directing dissolution of the
company court cannot be faulted on any legally tenable
grounds. Given the facts that winding up proceedings are
complete and no funds are available for disbursement to any
other or further creditor. Consequently, nothing more remains to
be done by the official liquidator.
6. We have put it to learned counsel for the appellant that
even if the appellant's contention that it was entitled to the
claim of Rs.39,24,390/- was accepted, what could be the
outcome, given the nil fund position of the company? There is
no answer forthcoming. It is obvious that no fruitful
proceedings could be undertaken against the company inasmuch
as no assets are available for disbursement. For this reason as
well, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal
and these applications are dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
P.S.TEJI, J
APRIL 16, 2015
ns
