AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dilip B. Bhosale, J.
In CA 890/13
Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning delay of 857 days in filing CA 889/13.
I have perused the application and the affidavit in support thereof. Respondent have not filed any reply opposing the prayer in the application.
Keeping that in view and considering the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the application, it is allowed and accordingly, the delay is condoned. The Application is disposed of.
In CA 889/13
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By this application, the employee of the company in liquidation has prayed for issuing direction to the official liquidator to re-adjudicate the matter and admit and distribute the closure compensation.
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the order passed by this Court dated 21.03.2013 in C.A. Nos. 1382 & 1433/2012 in Co. P. No. 166/2001 and submitted that this application also deserves to be allowed with direction to the official liquidator to adjudicate the matter afresh in the light of the observations made therein. He, however, confines his claim to closure compensation only.
Learned counsel appearing for the official liquidator does not oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice;
(i) The impugned notice of rejection is set aside.
(ii) The official liquidator is directed to adjudicate the matter afresh and while doing so, keep in view the order dated 21.03.2013 passed by this Court in C.A. Nos. 1382 & 1433/2012 in the very same company petition.
(iii) The official liquidator shall re-adjudicate the matter only insofar as closure compensation is concerned.
With these observations, the application is disposed of.