IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
.
CO.PET. 70/1995
.
V.J. EQUIPMENT LTD. ..... Petitioner
.
Through: Mr Sangram Patnaik and Mr Suresh
Kumar, Advocates for applicant in
CA No.22/2013.
.
versus
.
M/S VIVEK HATCHERIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
.
Through: Mr Ait Singh Bidhuri, Advocate for
R-1 in CA No.1762/2005 and for R-2
in CA No.559/2007.
.
Mr Bhagwan Swarup Shukla,
Advocate for applicant in CA
No.559/2007.
.
Mr Rajiv Behl, Advocate for Official
Liquidator.
.
Mr Praneet Singh and Mr Arjun Pant, Advocates for Mr Vikram Krishna.
.
CORAM:
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
.
O R D E R
.
13.02.2014
.
CA No.22/2013
.
This is an application filed by the management of the company
seeking recall of the order dated 01.05.2002 passed by this Court whereby
the Official Liquidator was appointed as a Provisional Liquidator to take
charge of the assets of the company. The said order is reproduced as
under:-
.
?By the Order dated 3rd December, 2001, the Chartered Accountant was
appointed to reconcile the differences between the two versions of the
balance sheet, i.e., one propounded by the petitioner and the other by
the respondent Company. The Chartered Accountant has filed the Report
dated 14th February, 2002, affirming that the sum of Rs.1,07,714/- is
payable to the petitioner.
.
In view of this report and considering the facts brought on
record, the respondent Company is directed to deposit the sum due,
indicated by the Chartered Accountant, i.e. Rs.1,07,714/- in its Report
in this Court within 6 weeks from today. In case the said sum of not
deposited by the respondent within the stipulated time, the OL attached
with this Court shall stand appointed as Provisional Liquidator.
.
.
In case the payment is not made within 6 weeks from today, the petition will be admitted for hearing. Citation will then be
published in one issue of `Statesman? (English) as well as `Veer
Arjun?(Hindi), published from Delhi and Delhi Gazette for 28th of
October, 2002. Interim orders will issue, restraining the respondent
Company from dealing with the assets of the company except in due course
of its business.
.
In case the payment due to the petitioner as per the
Chartered Accountant?s Report dated 14th February, 2002 is not made by
the respondent within 6 weeks from today, the Official Liquidator,
attached to this Court shall stand appointed as Provisional Liquidator
with effect from 16th June, 2002.
.
List on 28.10.2002.
.
Dasti.?
.
.
.
As indicated above, the order appointing a Provisional Liquidator
was passed because of a sum of `1,07,714/-, which was determined as
payable by the respondent company, could not be deposited by the
respondent with this Court. On account of the inability of the
respondent company to deposit the said sum, the Provisional Liquidator
was directed to proceed and take steps for liquidation of the company.
Accordingly, the Official Liquidator has been incharge of the assets till
date. The respondent has recently deposited the sum of `1,07,714/- and
has also deposited a further sum of `10,07,435.23 in this Court which was
determined by the Official Liquidator to be payable by the respondent
company.
.
It is relevant to note that the petitioner has not taken any steps
for publication of the citation and the advertisement for winding up
petition has not been published as yet. It is thus not certain as to the
number of persons who may be supporting or objecting to, this petition.
.
In the given circumstances, where the petitioner has failed to take
the requisite steps, it may be appropriate to close the present
proceedings. However, in order to do so it would be necessary for the ex
management to pay of the expenses that have been incurred by the Official
Liquidator.
.
The controversy now revolves around the amount payable to the
security agencies and other expenses that may have been incurred by the
Official Liquidator.
.
It is the case of the applicant that there has been a theft at the
premises and accordingly, the security agency has been negligent in
performance of its duties and, therefore, their bills were required to be
examined in detail. A committee for the said purpose had been appointed
which has since given its report. Although, the said report is not on
record, the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that an
amount of `45 lacs is determined as payable to M/s Jag Security Services.
In addition to the above, the payment there would also be other expenses
and costs that would have been incurred by the Official Liquidator. In
the given circumstances, the Official Liquidator shall provide a
.
statement of expenses incurred including expenses determined as payable to the security agency and also reasonable costs for the office of the
Official Liquidator. In the event, the applicant deposits the aforesaid
amount with the Official Liquidator within two weeks from the date on
which such statement of costs and other charges is communicated to the
applicant, the charge of the assets of the company will be handed over to
the applicant. However, it is clarified that if the said amount is not
paid by the applicant as directed, the Official Liquidator shall take
steps to publish the citation in the ?Statesman? (English Edition) and
?Veer Arjun?(Hindi Edition) as well issue advertisement in the official
Gazette for a hearing on 26.05.2014.
.
In the first instance, the expenses may be incurred from the common
pool fund.
.
The present application stands disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
.
.
.
.
.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
.
FEBRUARY 13, 2014
.
MK
.
$ 2
.