Aravind Kumar Jaiswal vs The Official Liquidator
2022 Latest Caselaw 4872 Tel

          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.

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

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.

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.

15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand

closed.

____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 23.09.2022 Vsv