AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.C. Gadgil, J.—This order will dispose of the four reports filed by the Liquidator, viz. Reports Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 29 of 1977. Report No. 15 has been numbered as Company Application No. 42 of 1977, while report No. 17 is numbered as Company Application No. 46 of 1977.
I have heard Mr. Kalele, Mr. Dhabe and Mr. Pradhan, advocates. I have also heard the Liquidator.
Report No. 15 of 1977 is the list of creditors that has been submitted by the Liquidator. It is not necessary to give the details of that list as it is a long one. At S. No. 2 is the debt payable to the Government to the tune of Rs. 38,730. The Liquidator has accepted a portion of this claim as a priority claim to the extent of Rs. 9419.13 while the remaining claim of Rs. 29,310 87 as an ordinary claim. This is a claim with respect to the Sales tax dues payable to the State Government. The State Government has preferred an appeal (C. A. No. 1 of 1977) as this latter claim of Rs. 29,310 87 was not treated as a priority claim. While deciding that appeal, a question also arose as to whether the State Government has a right to claim Rs. 9,419.13 on priority basis. After hearing the learned advocates on both sides. I have to-day dismissed the appeal preferred by the Government as also upheld the liquidator''s decision that Rs. 9419.13 should be treated as a priority claim- In view of this position, the claim at S. No. 2 needs no interference.
At S. No. 80, there is a claim of creditor D. A. Aparajit and the Liquidator has accepted the claim of Rs. 1,157.50 instead of Rs. 1,588.77. It appears that the Liquidator did not allow the costs which this creditor incurred for fighting the litigation against the company. Similar is the case of creditor No. 84 Shri N. H. Karambelkar. The Liquidator has accepted the claim of the said creditor to the extent of Rs. 1917 00 and has rejected the costs of Rs. 320. Mr. Dhabe and Mr. Kalele for these two creditors submitted that the claim for costs should have been accepted. The Liquidator and Mr. Pradhan urged that it was necessary for the creditors to file a formal appeal u/s 164 of the Company (Court) Rules. Technically this position is correct. However, I think that this is a fit case when, while setting the list of creditors, I should pass appropriate orders to remove injustice that has been caused to these two creditors. The result, therefore, is that the claim of the creditors at S Nos. 80 and 84 Mr. Aparajit and Mr. Karambelkar, respectively, is accepted and the amounts against their names should be substituted by the figures Rs. 1,588.77 and Rs. 2237.00. I am also considering the creditors'' list with respect to some other creditors and a composite order about the modification of the said list is being passed at the end of this order.
Report No. 16 is a detailed report given by the Liquidator showing the various categories of the persons from whom some amounts are due and payable. List ''A'' gives the details of 21 persons from whom paltry amounts ranging from Rs. 6 to Rs. 81.44 are recoverable. The total amount comes to Rs. 695.88. About 7 items are barred by time. The Liquidator has proposed that all the amount should be written off as the recovery costs shall be more than the actual recovery. His proposal is accepted. List ''B'' contains names of four persons who had closed their business and from whom some amounts are due. The Liquidator has reported that the amounts are barred by time. In view of this position, it is no use taking any recovery steps. This is more so, when the concerned persons have already closed their business. Chances of recovery of the said amounts from them are too remote and I think that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding in that direction. The amount mentioned in list ''B'' is allowed to be written off.
List ''C'' is with respect to a total liability of Rs. 7,670 23. This liability consists of separate claims against 14 individual persons. Claims at S. Nos. 2, 3 and 14 are barred by time. This claim pertains to the printing work that has been done by the Company, but which work has not been accepted by the above mentioned persons as the printing was wrong and at some places the work was incomplete and lying undelivered. In this background, filing of suits against these persons would entail unnecessary expenditure without there being any possibility of having any recovery. Hence the debts mentioned in list ''C'' are allowed to be written off. List ''D'' is with respect to the total liability of Rs. 1,165.76. The amount to be recovered from 8 persons shown in the list ranges from Rs. 100 to Rs. 250. The Liquidator has tried to contact these persons but the letters addressed to them were received with the remark ''not known''. The Liquidator has, therefore, rightly proposed that these claims should be written off. This is allowed. ''List ''E'' attached to report is of 8 persons. Each of these persons owes some amount to the Company, while the Company is also liable to pay some amount to these persons as the list of creditors, List ''E-1'' contains names of 5 creditors. These persons as contributories are liable to certain extent, as mentioned in list ''E-1''. The Liquidator has proposed that the amount payable by these persons in the two lists ''E'' and ''E-1'' should be adjusted by giving them credit of the respective amounts so far as their claims in the creditors'' list are concerned. This request is quite just and equitable. It is granted. Consequently, the creditors'' list so far as 14 persons (named in lists ''E'' and E-l) should be modified as detailed below :�
List ''F'' contains names of six persons from whom petty amounts are recoverable but the Liquidator has submitted that the claims are small. During the course of arguments, the learned advocates frankly told me that it would be of no use to file suits for these petty claims as time and money likely to be spent would be disproportionate to the recoveries. I would, therefore, direct that the amounts mentioned in list ''F'' should be written off.
List No. 1 consists of six categories. However, the first five categories can be clubbed and discussed together. The persons mentioned in categories 1 to 4 are all shareholders, having paid some amounts towards allotment of shares in their favour. However, the remaining share-money has not been paid. Such payment is not made even though they were called upon to do so. The Liquidator has proposed that the amounts paid by each of them in categories 1 to 4 should be forfeited for nonpayment of the remaining calls. This proposal is accepted.
Category No. 5 is with respect to one share-holder who has paid Rs 400 towards his shares but Rs. 600 are still payable by him. As per the creditors'' list, at S. No. 58 the company has to pay Rs. 3,904.72 to Bal Vidya Prakashan of which Mr. G. V. Hivse is the proprietor. The Liquidator has proposed that the unpaid share price of Rs. 600 should be treated as recovered by reducing the claim to Rs. 3,304.72. This proposal is accepted. The modification is made as detailed below. Category six contains the names of two customers with whom certain amount was deposited as a security for the printing work undertaken by the company. The Liquidator tells me that the work was not fully executed and, as such, these deposits have already been forfeited. In view of this position, it is no use showing these persons in the list of debtors. This should be noted by the Liquidator.
As discussed above, the list of creditors is settled subject to following modifications:
Serial No- in the Creditors list.
I
Name and addresses 2
Substitute the following in column 4 3
Substitute
the following in column 7 4
3.
Shri V. N. Thakur, Badnera Road, Amravati.
1,218.35
1,218.35
4.
Sau. Premlata Choudhari, MahalChowk, Nagpur.
12,564.66
11,664.16
6.
Sau. Tarabai Agrawal c/o Agrawal Advocate, Akot.
1,268,68
1,268.68
43.
Shri R. M. Dixit, Dhantoli, Nagpur.
5,650.50
4,656.50
46.
Shri P. M. Kale, Nagpur.
5,628.22
4,028.22
49.
Shri S. G. Unbale, Nagpur
12,521.89
11,521.89
80.
Shri D. A. Aparajit, Nagpur.
1,588.77
1,588,77
84.
Shri N. H. Karambelkar, Nagpur.
2,237.00
2,237.00
87.
Shri P. G. Chopkar, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
832.20
832.20
90.
Superintendent, LokanchiShala, Nagpur.
2,580.08
2.580.03
91.
Shri V. K. Chorghade, Dharampeth, Nagpur.
5,575.00
5,575.00
92.
Shri S. S. DehadRai, Mahal, Nagpur.
10,720.0
10,720.00
95.
Shri N. G. Ambekar, Mahal, Nagpur.
10,368.00
10,368.00
96.
Shri P. R. Dawande, Mahal, Nagpur.
2,865.50
2,865.50
Report No. 17 (Company Application No. 46/1977)
By this report, the Liquidator has placed before me certain bills by an auditor and five advocates and sought direction. He has also included in the report a typing bill and the claim for bonus. He has sought directions as to what she should do in this respect. After hearing the learned advocates and after taking into consideration the financial capacity of the company, I think that it will not be possible to accept the claims in entirety and hence the payments should be made as follows :
(i)
M/s P. G. Joshi & Company
... Rs. 3,500
(ii)
Mr. V. Y. Pradhan, Advocate
.. Rs. 6,500
(iii)
Mr. S. R. Dapke, Advocate
... Rs. 550
(iv)
Mr. L. S. Pitale, Sales Tax Practitioner.
.. Rs. 300
(v)
Mr. Y. N. Khare, Advocate
... Rs. 375
(vi)
Mr. H. W. Dhabe, Advocate
... Rs. 2,250
(vii)
Typing bill
... Rs. 566
(viii)
Bonus amount.
.. Rs. 505.87
Company Application No. 29/1977.
In Darkhast No. 273/1974, a motor cycle belonging the company has been attached. The liquidator has made a report that the attachment may be ordered to be withdrawn. During the course of arguments, I was told that this motor-cycle is a part of the property that was disposed of by the Liquidator as an asset of the company. This sale was effected as per the orders of this Court and it has been sanctioned. In view of this report of the Liquidator I order that the claim of the motor cycle on the basis of the attachment would not survive. The motor cycle would, therefore, not remain under any attachment. The motor-cycle is in the custody of the Liquidator. It may be handed over to the purchaser S. G Unhale and Company. A copy of this relevant order be sent to the Small Cause Court, Nagpur, for information and, if necessary, for passing formal orders.
An amount of Rs. 2,000 has already been attached by the Civil Court for the creditor Narhar Hari Karambelkar in Civil Suit No. 144/1973 at Amra-vati. The Liquidator submitted that the company has a right to get back the money. The question is as to whether the amount should be made available to the Liquidator for winding up purposes. I think that this should be done and hence it is necessary to refund the amount deposited in the said suit to the Liquidator. A copy of this relevant order be sent to the concerned Court for information and necessary action.
The Liquidator should take necessary steps to make payments as sanctioned in this order as also the priority payments. Thereafter the Liquidator should submit a report as to how much dividend should be paid to the non-priority creditors. On receipt of this report, further orders would be issued.