Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
OJA/25520/2007 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
O.J.APPEAL
No. 255 of 2007
In
COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 356 of 2007
With
O.J.APPEAL
No. 256 of 2007
In
COMPANY APPLICATION No. 357 of 2007
To
O.J.APPEAL
No. 265 of 2007
In
COMPANY APPLICATION No. 366 of 2007
=========================================================
EMPLOYEES'
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION - Appellant(s)
Versus
O.L.
OF ANJALI COATING PVT. LTD. - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
HINA DESAI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR
JS YADAV for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 12/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
1. All
these 11 appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal together as
they arise out of common judgment dated 05-09-2007 rendered in
Company Application No.356 of 2007 and cognate applications in
relation to 11 different companies in liquidation.
2. The
appeals have been filed by the original applicant; Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Vadodara seeking
priority in relation to the employers’ contribution and employees’
contribution which was not deposited by the erstwhile Management of
the companies in liquidation with appropriate authority.
3. Heard
the learned advocate for the appellant. She has reiterated the
contentions raised before the learned Company Court to submit that
the appellant is an organisation which acts as a trustee of the
funds of the workers of the companies in liquidation against the
amounts collected by way of contribution from the employers and the
employees so as to benefit the workers. That the claim of the
Provident Fund Commissioner, in the circumstances, has to be equated
with the claim of the workers envisaged by the provisions of
Section 529(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 and deemed charge has to be
considered for directing the Official Liquidator of the companies
in liquidation to make payment to the appellant.
4. Having
gone through impugned judgment dated 05-09-2007, it can be seen
that the Hon’ble Court has referred to and relied upon the Division
Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Company Application No.216
of 1997 in Company Petition NO.205 of 1996 and allied matters which
has subsequently been followed by the learned Company Court in
Company application No. 195 of 2005 dated 31-8-2005 in case of
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I Vs. Official Liquidator. Thus,
the controversy already stands concluded and no infirmity exists
in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference.
5. In
relation to the directions given by the learned Company Judge in
paragraph No. 9 of the impugned judgment, learned advocate appearing
for the Official Liquidator has placed on record a copy of
communication dated 19-09-2008 (it should be 12-09-2008) directing
the Official Liquidator to comply with the said directions not later
than 15 days from today.
6. At
this stage, learned advocate for the appellant prays for time to
obtain instructions from the officers of the appellant organisation
as to whether contempt proceedings should be initiated or not. The
said request is not accepted for the simple reason that whether
contempt proceedings should be initiated or not has no nexus with
pendency of the appeals, and in fact, pendnecy of the appeals may be
to the detriment to the appellant in the event the appellant desires
to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings in accordance with law.
7. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeals do not merit
acceptance and are accordingly summarily dismissed.
(D.A.
Mehta, J.)
(Bankim
N. Mehta, J.)
/JVSatwara/
Top