{"id":120927,"date":"2003-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003"},"modified":"2016-03-02T07:07:04","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T01:37:04","slug":"t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003","title":{"rendered":"T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. … on 1 January, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. … on 1 January, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: K Puj<\/div>\n
Bench: K Puj<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 K.A. Puj, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. This Company  Application  is  filed  by  Textile
\n      Labour  Association  and in the Judge’s Summons taken out
\n      by  the  said  Association,  a  prayer  is  made  seeking
\n      direction  to  pay an amount of Rs. 5,15,76,953.00 to 607
\n      workmen of  the  Star  of  Gujarat  Mills  Co.  Ltd.  (In
\n      Liquidation).   By way of an interim relief, it is prayed
\n      for that an amount at the rate of  10  per  cent  of  the
\n      amount claimed may be paid to all those workmen.\n<\/p>\n
 2. In  support  of the Judge’s Summons, an Affidavit
\n      is filed by one Mr. Manilal G. Parmar, the  Secretary  of
\n      the  applicant  Association  wherein  it  is, inter alia,
\n      stated that by a separate order passed by this Court, the
\n      plant and machinery have been disposed  of  by  the  Sale
\n      Committee  and  an  amount  of Rs. 1,50,00,000\/= has been
\n      realised.  It was further stated that the  claim  of  607
\n      workmen  of  the  Star of Gujarat Mills Co.Ltd (In Liqn.)
\n      has already been lodged with the Official Liquidator.  It
\n      was  further  stated  that  since  the  amount   of   Rs.
\n      1,50,00,000\/=  was lying with the Official Liquidator and
\n      since the land and building of  the  said  Mills  Company
\n      were yet to be sold the amount which was already realised
\n      may  be  directed to be paid to the workmen towards their
\n      dues. Along with the said Affidavit a report  of  workers
\n      due payment prepared by one Mr. Nikhil Shah was produced.\n<\/p>\n
 3. In  response  to  the  above Judge’s Summons, the
\n      Official Liquidator has  filed  his  report  on  4-9-2000
\n      stating that he  has  appointed  Mr.    R.    Choudhary &
\n      Associates, Chartered Accountants to verify the claim  of
\n      the  workers and after verification by the said Chartered
\n      Accountant the amount was reduced to Rs.   4,89,03,920\/=.
\n      He  has further submitted that the secured creditors have
\n      not furnished their  claims  duly  verified\/certified  by
\n      their Chartered Accountants as on the date of winding up,
\n      i.e., 14-6-1999.    The Central Bank of India, who is one
\n      of the secured creditors and impleaded as respondent No.2
\n      in  the  present  application  has  filed  its  affidavit
\n      through  its  Senior Manager, on 27-9-2000 stating, inter
\n      alia, that the Central Bank of India had  also  lent  and
\n      advanced  sizeable financial assistance to the company in
\n      liquidation and on the date of  the  winding  up  of  the
\n      company, i.e.,  14-6-1999,  a  sum of Rs.  16,29,43,383\/=
\n      was due and payable by the said company to the Bank.   It
\n      was  further  stated  that  the Bank has already filed an
\n      Original Application No.  279 of 1999 for recovery of Rs.
\n      16,02,04,845.74  ps.in  the   Debt   Recovery   Tribunal,
\n      Ahmedabad  and the said application is pending before the
\n      D.R.T.  It was further stated in the affidavit  that  the
\n      bank has  already  incurred a sum of Rs.  7,05,220.37 ps.
\n      towards insurance, security and publication charges which
\n      should be paid to the bank before making distribution  of
\n      any payment to any one.\n<\/p>\n
 4.Considering   the  prayer  made  in  the  Judge’s
\n      Summons,  the  Official  Liquidator’s  Report  filed   on
\n      4.9.2000  as well as on 22-9-2000 and the affidavit filed
\n      on behalf of Central Bank of  India  on  27.9.2000,  this
\n      Court  has  passed  an  order on 19.10.2000 directing the
\n      Official Liquidator to make the payment of Rs.  30  lakhs
\n      to   the  workmen  and  for  that  purpose  the  Official
\n      Liquidator was  further  directed  to  encash  the  fixed
\n      deposits  prematurely to the extent of Rs. 30 lakhs. This
\n      Court has further directed the  Liquidator  in  the  said
\n      order  to verify the claim of expenditure incurred by the
\n      Central Bank of India and after verification  if  it  was
\n      found  that  the Bank has spent the said amount, the same
\n      was directed to be paid to the Bank.    Pursuant  to  the
\n      said  direction, the Official Liquidator has verified the
\n      claim of expenditure made by the bank and submitted  that
\n      the bank’s claim towards expenditure is admissible to the
\n      extent  of  Rs.  4,36,803\/= out of which an amount of Rs.
\n      20,000\/= has already been paid.    This  Court  vide  its
\n      order   dated   21.12.2000   had  directed  the  Official
\n      Liquidator to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,16,803\/= to
\n      the bank towards its claim for expenditure.   This  court
\n      has  further directed the Official Liquidator to make the
\n      payment of Rs. 30 lakhs each  to  the  secured  creditors
\n      namely Central Bank of India and IIBI as the workers have
\n      already  been  paid  Rs. 30 lakhs towards their claim for
\n      salary.\n<\/p>\n
   5. The Official Liquidator  has  further  filed  his
\n      report  on 28.6.2001, pursuant to the direction issued by
\n      this Court on 18.6.2001 wherein it  is  stated  that  the
\n      Chartered Accountant appointed by the Official Liquidator
\n      has  submitted  his  verification  report to the Official
\n      Liquidator vide his letter dated 18.7.2000 to the tune of
\n      Rs. 4,89,83,919.10 ps.  It was further stated in the said
\n      report that the bank vide its letter dated 19.1.2001  has
\n      forwarded  a  reconciliation  statement  of workers claim
\n      submitted by the Chartered  Accountant  of  the  Official
\n      Liquidator and  the Chartered Accountant of the bank.  It
\n      was further stated by the O.L. in his report  that  there
\n      was  discrepancy as regards the date upto which the debts
\n      were to be calculated and other discrepancies  were  also
\n      noticed.   It  was  further  stated  that  the  Chartered
\n      Accountant of the  bank  has  calculated  the  claims  of
\n      workers  as  on  the date of closure of the said company,
\n      i.e. 28.4.1998 whereas the Chartered Accountant appointed
\n      by the Official Liquidator has calculated the  claims  of
\n      the  workers upto the date of the appointment of Official
\n      Liquidator as Provincial  Liquidator,  i.e.,  14.12.1998.
\n      However  in  both the reports the calculation of workers’
\n      dues was made on the basis of the strength of 529 workers
\n      as against the strength of 607 workers submitted  by  the
\n      applicant-association. As per the report of the Chartered
\n      Accountant  appointed  by the bank, the workers claim was
\n      verified to the tune of Rs. 4,38,73,468.01 ps.\n<\/p>\n
  6. The Official Liquidator  has  further  filed  his
\n      report  on  29th  October  2001 stating, inter alia, that
\n      pursuant to the  direction  issued  by  this  Court,  the
\n      Official  Liquidator  has  appointed  M\/s. R. Choudhary &
\n      Associates, a  firm  of  Chartered  Accountants  for  the
\n      purpose of fixing ratio amongst the secured creditors and
\n      the  workers  of the said Mills Company. The said firm of
\n      Chartered Accountants vide its  letter  dated  29.10.2001
\n      has  submitted its report with the Official Liquidator as
\n      per the details given in the said report as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  Institution As per C.A.  of As per C.A.\n<\/p>\n
       Central Bank of appointed by Offi-\n<\/p>\n
       India  cial Liquidator.\n<\/p>\n
 1.Central Bank  58.21%     57.17%\n        of India.       \n      \n\n 2.I.I.B.I.  23.48%  23.06%  \n      \n\n 3.G.I.I.C.   2.37%   2.33%  \n \n\n 4.Textile Labour 15.94%  17.44%\n        Association. \n        \n\n  100.00%  100.00%   \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
    The Official Liquidator has  further  submitted  in  the
\n      report that he was having a sum of Rs. 1,17,39,265\/= out
\n      of which certain amounts towards payment to the security
\n      agencies,   Official  Liquidator’s  commission  and  tax
\n      liabilities etc., were required to be  retained  by  him
\n      and  an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000\/= could be distributed
\n      amongst the secured creditors as well as the workers.\n<\/p>\n
  7. Central Bank of India, the respondent No.2 herein
\n      has  filed  further  affidavit-in-reply  on  the   report
\n      submitted   by  the  Official  Liquidator  on  29.10.2001
\n      wherein it is stated that the ratio  determined  by  M\/s.
\n      R.   Choudhary  &  Associates,  which  was adopted by the
\n      Official Liquidator was not correct.   It  was  submitted
\n      that  the  Bank  has caused detailed searches of the said
\n      company’s file with the R.O.C.  and it was found that  no
\n      charges  in  favour  of GIIC have been shown to have been
\n      registered and hence the Central Bank of India as well as
\n      IIBI are the only secured creditors and that the GIIC was
\n      not entitled to any priority to receive any amount out of
\n      the sale realisation of the assets of the above  company.
\n      It  was  further  stated  that  GIIC has not produced any
\n      cogent and satisfactory documentary evidence  in  support
\n      of its entitlement to any priority to receive amount.\n<\/p>\n
  8. Industrial  Investment  Bank  of  India Ltd., the
\n      respondent   No.3   herein    has    also    filed    its
\n      affidavit-in-reply on 5th December 2001 raising a dispute
\n      with  regard  to the actual number of workers entitled to
\n      claim dues as per Section 529 and 529A of  the  Companies
\n      Act, 1956.    It was stated that as per the report of the
\n      Official Liquidator, the claim of 607 workers amounted to
\n      Rs.  4,89,03,919.10 ps.  Based  on  the  said  claim  the
\n      ratio  as calculated by the Chartered Accountants came to
\n      17.44%  of  the  total  amount  to  be  distributed  from
\n      realisation  of  assets  of  the Mills Company as per the
\n      provisions of Section 529 and 529A of the Act.    It  was
\n      further submitted that the total number of 607 workers as
\n      claimed  by the Textile Labour Association was not at all
\n      verified  by  the  Official  Liquidator   and   Chartered
\n      Accountants   and   without   any   application  of  mind
\n      mechanically calculated  the  claim  and  ratio  for  the
\n      purpose   of  pari  passu  distribution  between  secured
\n      creditors and the workers.  It was further submitted that
\n      the Board for Industrial & Financial  Reconstruction,  by
\n      consent  of  all the secured creditors and workers of the
\n      Mills Company in liquidation  had  sanctioned  scheme  of
\n      rehabilitation,  in  exercise  of  powers conferred under
\n      Section  18(4)  read  with  Section  19(3)  of  the  Sick
\n      Industrial  Companies  (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, on
\n      19th May 1991.  As per  the  said  sanctioned  scheme  in
\n      Clause  G,  it was agreed between the parties that out of
\n      the total 607 workers and 75 staff, 224  workers  and  26
\n      staff  would  be  reduced  through  Voluntary  Retirement
\n      Scheme.  Pursuant to the said agreement the Mills Company
\n      in liquidation retrenched a total number of 250 employees
\n      which was specifically  and  categorically  reflected  at
\n      Clause  12.4  in an audit report submitted by Ramanlal G.
\n      Shah & Company, Chartered Accountants,  dated  28.2.1996.
\n      This  audit  report  was carried out from January 1996 to
\n      March 1996 at the instance of the management of the mills
\n      company in liquidation.  It was further submitted that if
\n      the  effect  was  given  to   the   said   reduction   of
\n      workers\/staff  members, the total number of workers as on
\n      28.6.1996 stood reduced to 383 workers.  It was therefore
\n      submitted  that  since  the  mills  company   went   into
\n      liquidation  on 14.12.1998 the total number of workers of
\n      the mills in company in liquidation entitled for claiming
\n      pari passu disbursement was only 383 workers and not  607
\n      workers as  claimed by the applicant-association.  It was
\n      further submitted that the Official  Liquidator  has  not
\n      verified  any of the documents and details available with
\n      him  and  mechanically  calculated  the  workers’   claim
\n      without  any  application of mind and without discharging
\n      his  obligations  and  duties  as  specified  under   the
\n      provisions of  the  said  Act.    The respondent No.3 has
\n      therefore  urged  before  the  Court  that  the  Official
\n      Liquidator  should be directed to pursue all the relevant
\n      documents related to strength of number of workers of the
\n      mills company in  liquidation  and  to  file  his  report
\n      reflecting  actual number of workers working and enrolled
\n      on muster roll at the time of winding  up  of  the  mills
\n      company in liquidation and entitled to claim disbursement
\n      as per the provisions of Section 529 and 529A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
  9. Since the dispute with regard to the exact number
\n      of  workers  entitled  to pari passu disbursement and the
\n      claim of GIIC as secured creditors was raised before  the
\n      Court,  this  Court  has  observed  in  its  order  dated
\n      14.12.2001 as under;\n<\/p>\n
         “……..It  is  not  a matter of dispute
\n              that as per the scheme worked  out,  earlier  250
\n              workers\/members   of   the   staff   were  to  be
\n              retrenched.     However,    in    reality     246
\n              workers\/members   of   the  staff  were  actually
\n              retrenched  prior  to  the  winding  up  of   the
\n              company.   As per the say of T.L.A., if the total
\n              strength of workers was 607 then in the event  of
\n              retrenchment   of   246   workers,   the   actual
\n              claimant-workers would  be  much  less  than  482
\n              calculated by the Chartered Accountant of Central
\n              Bank of  India.    Hence, I am surprised that how
\n              T.L.A. has made a claim of entire set of  workers
\n              i.e.   all  607,  though  substantial  number  of
\n              workers   had   already   got   their   statutory
\n              retrenchment compensation decided under a scheme.
\n              Exaggerated   or   false   claims   evaluated  or
\n              calculated  without  ascertaining  correct  facts
\n              available  on  record  would affect the ratio and
\n              the   entitlement   of   amount   by    Financial
\n              Institutions  and  Secured Creditors and it would
\n              give scope  to  unauthorised  persons  to  pocket
\n              same.   Therefore,  to  bring  the correct set of
\n              facts  on  record,  the  Official  Liquidator  is
\n              directed  to  submit  his  report  clarifying all
\n              these  confused   contingency   and   conflicting
\n              figures on record…..”\n<\/p>\n
  10. Pursuant  to  the  directions  given  in the said
\n      order, the Official Liquidator has filed  his  report  on
\n      8th August  2002  wherein  it  is  stated  that  M\/s.  R.
\n      Choudhary & Associates, firm of Chartered Accountants has
\n      clarified the position vide their letter dated  25.3.2002
\n      and  as  regards  the  total  number  of  workers  as was
\n      submitted by them, the total  number  of  workers’  claim
\n      verified  by  them for workers eligible for claim was 529
\n      out of 607 workers as  proposed  by  the  Textile  Labour
\n      Association.   It  was  further stated that the documents
\n      and information provided to them did not show any workers
\n      retrenchment under the  voluntary  retirement  scheme  as
\n      claimed  by  the concurrent audit report dated 23.6.1996.
\n      It was further stated that the Central  Bank  of  India’s
\n      auditor has also confirmed the fact that the variance was
\n      only  because  of other facts and not for any dispute for
\n      the number of workers.  The said  auditors  have  further
\n      submitted that they have verified PF register, attendance
\n      register,  payment  register,  leave encashment register,
\n      leave  records  etc.,  and  the  same  was  not   showing
\n      retrenched  workers under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It
\n      was further stated that the mills company in  liquidation
\n      had  also  appointed  many  workers  after  the  date  of
\n      sanction of the scheme by BIFR on 5-8-1991 and also after
\n      the concurrent audit report dated 23.6.1996 for which the
\n      date of joining of such workers could be verified.    The
\n      said  auditors  have, therefore, reconciled the figure as
\n      under;\n<\/p>\n
  No. of workers and staff as on BIFR
\n      Scheme Sanction dated 5\/08\/91.  (606+75) 681   <\/p>\n
 Joined after the 5\/08\/91.    101  <\/p>\n
   Total :       782       <\/p>\n
  Less:  retrenchment as stated in Concurrent
\n             auditor report dated 23\/06\/1996.       –  246  <\/p>\n
 Balance No. of Persons.     536       <\/span><\/p>\n
       With regard to  discrepancy  of  Rs.  50  lakhs,  it  was
\n      submitted  by  the auditors that the reasons for variance
\n      were basically due to difference in assumption  based  on
\n      the   interpretation   of   certain   important   matters
\n      pertaining  to  period  of  closure,  completed  year  of
\n      service etc.  With regard to ratio, considering the claim
\n      of  GIIC  as secured creditor, the auditors have observed
\n      that the GIIC was not secured creditor and an alternative
\n      ratio calculation was given by them as under;\n<\/p>\n
   AS  PER  THE  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS APPOINTED BY OFFICIAL
\n      LIQUIDATOR       <\/p>\n
   Sr. Name of the creditor Amount in Rs. Ratio        <\/p>\n
 01   Central Bank of India 16,02,04,845.74  58.53% <\/p>\n
  02   IIBI    6,46,23,683.00  23.61%  <\/p>\n
 03   Textile Labour Association  4,88,84,586.06  17.86% <\/p>\n
 Total   27,37,13,114.80 100.00%  <\/p>\n
 AS PER THE CHARTERED  ACCOUNTANTS  APPOINTED  BY  CENTRAL
\n      BANK OF INDIA  <\/p>\n
 Sr. Name of the creditor Amount in Rs. Ratio        <\/p>\n
   01   Central Bank of India 16,02,04,845.74  59.62%  <\/p>\n
 02   IIBI    6,46,23,683.00  24.05%  <\/p>\n
  03   Textile Labour Association  4,38,73,468.01  16.33%  <\/p>\n
 Total   26,87,01,996.75 100.00%        <\/p>\n
  The IIBI, respondent No.3 herein, however, submitted vide
\n      their  letter  dated  10.7.2002  that  in  terms  of  the
\n      Rehabilitation Scheme approved by  BIFR,  the  management
\n      had  paid retrenchment compensation to 250 workers out of
\n      607 workers and did not have any authority to absorb  105
\n      workers thereafter.    It was therefore submitted by them
\n      that  it  would  be  necessary  to  ask   the   erstwhile
\n      management to explain this lapse and that Central Bank of
\n      India’s   dues   in   respect   of   WCTC  1  and  2  and
\n      rehabilitation term loan are secured by pari  passu  term
\n      loan,  i.e.,  first  charge  on  the  fixed assets of the
\n      company.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Heard Mr.   DS  Vasavada, ld.  advocate appearing
\n      for the  applicant-association,   Mr.      Panesar,   ld.
\n      advocate  appearing  for  the  Central Bank of India, Mr.
\n      Sandeep Singhi, ld.  advocate appearing for IIBI, and Mr.
\n      Roshan Desai, ld.  advocate  appearing  for  GIIC.    Mr.
\n      Vasavada  has  vehemently  argued  that in support of the
\n      applicant’s claim he  has  furnished  a  detailed  report
\n      showing  the names of 607 workers and making the claim of
\n      Rs.5,15,76,953.  The ratio should be worked  out  on  the
\n      basis  of 607 workers and not on the basis of 529 workers
\n      as determined by the Chartered Accountants  appointed  by
\n      the Official Liquidator as well as by the Central Bank of
\n      India.   He  has  further submitted that the claim of the
\n      workers should not be reduced as suggested either by  the
\n      Chartered Accountant appointed by the Official Liquidator
\n      or  by  the Chartered Accountant appointed by the Central
\n      Bank of India.  Mr.  Sandeep Singhi and Mr.    RM  Desai,
\n      the ld.  advocates appearing for respondents No.  3 and 4
\n      respectively have, however, objected to the claim made by
\n      the applicant-association.   It is submitted that even as
\n      per the report of workers due  payment  prepared  by  Mr.
\n      Nikhil  Shah  and  produced  by the applicant-association
\n      does not contain the details of  the  workmen  listed  at
\n      Serial No.   540 to 607.  Even with regard to the workers
\n      listed at Serial Nos.  528, 532, 534, 535,  536,537,  538
\n      and  539, it is found that they were appointed subsequent
\n      to the claim  sanctioned  by  BIFR.    Mr.    Singhi  has
\n      therefore  submitted  that the ex-management had no right
\n      to appoint these workmen and no claim can be  entertained
\n      in respect  of  these  workers.   It is further submitted
\n      that initially there was difference with  regard  to  the
\n      number of workers in the report prepared by the Chartered
\n      Accountant  appointed  by the Official Liquidator as well
\n      as by the Chartered Accountant appointed by  the  Central
\n      Bank of India.  The reconciliation made also did not give
\n      any  clear  picture about the exact number of workers, as
\n      in the  said  reconciliation,  the  initial  strength  of
\n      workers was considered as 681 which includes the 75 staff
\n      members.   He has submitted that the claim of these staff
\n      members should not be considered  while  determining  the
\n      ratio.   Even  in this reconciliation, the balance number
\n      of persons  was  shown  as  536.    In  view   of   these
\n      discrepancies in the strength of workers, Mr.  Singhi has
\n      submitted  that no order with regard to the determination
\n      of the ratio amongst the workmen  and  secured  creditors
\n      can  be  made and that the Official Liquidator as well as
\n      the ex-management of the company in liquidation should be
\n      directed to verify about the exact number of workers  and
\n      thereafter the further order with regard to determination
\n      of  ratio  as  well  as disbursement of the amount can be
\n      passed.\n<\/p>\n
 12. I have heard the learned advocates appearing  for
\n      the  respective  parties  at  length and I have also gone
\n      through the Company  Application,  Report  filed  by  the
\n      O.L.,  as  well  as  the Affidavits-in-Reply filed by the
\n      respondents.  I have also  perused  the  three  different
\n      reports     prepared     at    the    behest    of    the
\n      applicant-association, the Official Liquidator as well as
\n      the Central Bank of India.  One thing is very clear  that
\n      the claim put forward by the applicant-association on the
\n      basis   of   the   strength  of  607  workmen  cannot  be
\n      entertained and accepted as the necessary details are not
\n      there even in the report prepared at the  behest  of  the
\n      applicant-association.   The  first and foremost question
\n      which is left for determination to this Court  is  as  to
\n      whether the strength of workmen was 529 or even less than
\n      that.   The  another  question,  which  is required to be
\n      decided, is as  to  whether  the  applicant-association’s
\n      claim   seeking   direction  to  pay  an  amount  of  Rs.
\n      5,15,76,953\/= to the workmen of the Mills Company can  be
\n      adjudicated  and  decided at this juncture, as at present
\n      there is nothing on record to show that the entire assets
\n      of the Mills Company in liquidation have been sold.    On
\n      going  through  the  record  submitted  by  the  Official
\n      Liquidator, it is found that the  plant  and  machineries
\n      and  other movable assets of the company were sold and an
\n      amount of Rs.  1,50,05,000\/= was realised by the Official
\n      Liquidator.  Out of this amount, under the order of  this
\n      Court, Rs.  30 lakhs each were disbursed in favour of the
\n      applicant-association,  Central  Bank of India, and IIBI.
\n      The  balance  amount  was  required   by   the   Official
\n      Liquidator  towards  expenses and Liquidator’s commission
\n      etc.   Hence,  no  further  amount  is  required  to   be
\n      disbursed at present.  The question of other disbursement
\n      would  arise  only  when  the immovable properties of the
\n      Mills Company in liquidation are sold.  It is, therefore,
\n      in the fitness of things that the correct strength of the
\n      workers is  required  to  be  ascertained  by  collecting
\n      certain further  details.    The  Official Liquidator is,
\n      therefore, directed to ascertain from  the  ex-management
\n      with regard to the workmen who were already retrenched as
\n      observed by M\/s.   Ramanlal G.  Shah & Company, Chartered
\n      Accountants, in their Report dated June 20,  1996.    The
\n      Official  Liquidator  is further directed to call for the
\n      explanation from the  ex-management  as  to  under  which
\n      authority  101  persons  were appointed by them after the
\n      Rehabilitation Scheme sanctioned by BIFR.  It is open for
\n      the Official Liquidator  to  call  for  this  information
\n      either from  the  ex-management or from M\/s.  Ramanlal G.
\n      Shah & Company, Chartered Accountant who has pointed  out
\n      this  fact in their Report or from IIBI, Ahmedabad Branch
\n      Office, Ahmedabad to whom the concerned audit report  was
\n      forwarded by   the   auditor.     After  undergoing  this
\n      exercise, the Official Liquidator is directed to  file  a
\n      fresh report  before  the  Court.  As far as the claim of
\n      GIIC is concerned, at present there is nothing on  record
\n      to  show  that  the  proper charge has been registered in
\n      favour of  the  GIIC.    The  Official   Liquidator   is,
\n      therefore,  directed  to  call  for the necessary details
\n      from GIIC.  The ratio can be determined thereafter on the
\n      basis of this fresh information which would  be  received
\n      by the Official Liquidator.\n<\/p>\n
  13. With  the  aforesaid  directions,   the   present
\n      Company Application is accordingly disposed with no order
\n      as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
 rmr.    [ K.A. Puj, J. ]       <\/p>\n
  After the above judgment  is  pronounced  Mr.Buch
\n      learned  advocate  appearing for Singhi & Buch Associates
\n      for respondent no.3 submits that the  Hon’ble  Court  has
\n      observed  in  the  judgment  that  the balance amount was
\n      required by the Official Liquidator towards expenses  and
\n      Liquidator’s Commission  etc.    As a matter of fact, the
\n      Liquidator has made the claim regarding the  Liquidator’s
\n      Commission  in  his  report,  however,  no  such claim is
\n      adjudicated and hence this observation would create  some
\n      difficulties in   future.     Having  heard  the  learned
\n      advocate and having perused the judgement, I  am  of  the
\n      view that the Liquidator can move appropriate application
\n      for claiming  the  Liquidator’s  Commission.  The present
\n      order is passed only with regard to  non-disbursement  of
\n      the balance  amount lying with the Liquidator.  Hence the
\n      balance amount or any part thereof cannot be  treated  as
\n      the   amount   appropriated   towards   the  Liquidator’s
\n      Commission.  The Court will consider the  said  claim  as
\n      and  when  proper  application is made and order of final
\n      disbursement would be passed by the Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. … on 1 January, 2003 Author: K Puj Bench: K Puj JUDGMENT K.A. Puj, J. 1. This Company Application is filed by Textile Labour Association and in the Judge’s Summons taken out by the said Association, a prayer is made seeking direction to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. ... on 1 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. ... on 1 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T01:37:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. … on 1 January, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T01:37:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3709,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003\",\"name\":\"T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. ... on 1 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T01:37:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. … on 1 January, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. ... on 1 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. ... on 1 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T01:37:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. … on 1 January, 2003","datePublished":"2002-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T01:37:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003"},"wordCount":3709,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003","name":"T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. ... on 1 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T01:37:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-l-a-vs-o-l-of-star-of-gujarat-mills-co-on-1-january-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.L.A. vs O.L. Of Star Of Gujarat Mills Co. … on 1 January, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120927\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}