{"id":261026,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-10T11:17:50","modified_gmt":"2017-11-10T05:47:50","slug":"union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Union vs O on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Union vs O on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCOMA\/122\/2010\t 19\/ 21\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nAPPLICATION No. 122 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 169 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nUNION\nBANK OF INDIA - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nO\nL OF GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD ( IN LIQUIDATION) & 2 -\nRespondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nNALINI S LODHA for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nMRUGESH JANI for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR BD KARIA for Respondent(s)\n: 2, \nMR RM DESAI for Respondent(s) :\n3, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/09\/2010  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tThe applicant   Union
\n\tBank of India has taken out this Judges Summons praying for the
\n\tdirection to the Official Liquidator to distribute the sale proceeds
\n\tof Rs.814 lacs with interest earned thereon lying with the office of
\n\tthe Official Liquidator to the secured creditors subject to the
\n\tprovisions of Section-529(A) of the Companies Act<\/a>, 1956. The
\n\tapplicant has also prayed for the direction for adhoc payments
\n\ttowards its claim against the usual undertaking till the final
\n\tdisbursement.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court has issued
\n\tnotice on 13.5.2010 and directed the Official Liquidator to file
\n\tadditional report pointing out fund position in the account of the
\n\tCompany in liquidation. The Official Liquidator has initially filed
\n\this report on 12.5.2010. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court
\n\ton 13.5.2010 the Official Liquidator has filed his additional report
\n\ton 10.6.2010.  An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the
\n\trespondent No.3 i.e. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., on 29.6.2010.
\n\tOn behalf of the applicant, an affidavit-in-rejoinder is filed on
\n\t28.7.2010.\n<\/p>\n
\tSince the pleadings of
\n\tthe parties are completed the matter is taken up for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs.Nalini Lodha, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that this Court
\n\tby an order dated 9.3.2005 passed in Company Petition No.169 of 2004
\n\tappointed the Official Liquidator attached to this Court as
\n\tLiquidator of Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd., with direction to
\n\ttake possession of the assets of the Company. By an order dated
\n\t12.9.2006 passed in OLR No.70 of 2006 the Court has appointed the
\n\tSale Committee comprising of the Official Liquidator,
\n\trepresentatives of the secured creditors and workers union, as
\n\tmembers thereof for disposal of the assets and properties of the
\n\tcompany in liquidation. By an order dated 1.2.2008 passed by this
\n\tCourt in OLR No.92 of 2007 the sale of the factory land, building,
\n\tplant, machinery and all other movables situated at GIDC Electronics
\n\tEstate, Sector-25, Gandhinagar was confirmed in favour of HPV
\n\tDevelopers for Rs.8.04 crores and the said HPV Developers made
\n\tpayment of Rs.8.14 crores including interest for late payment.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs. Lodha has further
\n\tsubmitted that the applicant Bank in joint participation with Bank
\n\tof Baroda had granted various credit facilities to the company in
\n\tliquidation and the said credit facilities are secured by the
\n\tmovable and immovable assets of the Company in liquidation. The
\n\toutstanding dues of the applicant Bank as on the date of winding up
\n\tof the Company in liquidation i.e. 9.3.2005 are to the tune of
\n\tRs.1,24,54,004\/-.  The applicant Bank has filed Original Application
\n\tNo.156 of 2005 against the Company in liquidation and others before
\n\tthe Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad for a sum of Rs.1,36,90,400\/-
\n\twith future interest and costs and which has been allowed with
\n\tsimple interest @ 7% thereon from 1.8.2005 until realization and
\n\tcosts vide judgment and order dated 27.4.2009 holding inter alia
\n\tthat the applicant Bank and respondent No.2 are having first pari
\n\tpassu charge on the current assets i.e. stocks and book-debts and
\n\tthe applicant bank and respondent No.3 have pari passu charge on the
\n\tproperties being factory land, building plant and machinery of the
\n\tCompany in liquidation. She has, therefore, submitted that the
\n\tapplicant is a secured creditor having first charge on pari passu
\n\tbasis on the assets of the Company-in-liquidation. She further
\n\tsubmitted that the amount Rs.814 lacs has been lying with the office
\n\tof Official Liquidator since August, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe applicant Bank had
\n\tearlier taken out Judge’s Summons seeking direction to the Official
\n\tLiquidator to distribute the sale proceeds to the secured creditors
\n\tsubject to the provisions of Section-529A of the Companies Act, 1956
\n\tvide Company Application No.241 of 2009, when one of the secured
\n\tcreditor   IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., – respondent No.3 have
\n\tdisputed the status of the applicant as secured creditor and alleged
\n\tthat he is the only secured creditor and Union Bank of India and\/or
\n\tBank of Baroda are not the secured creditors of the Company in
\n\tliquidation. This Court by an order dated 11.9.2009 passed in
\n\tCompany Application No.241 of 2009 permitted the Official Liquidator
\n\tto engage a Chartered Accountant for verification of claim of the
\n\tsecured creditors and workers’ claim and to file appropriate report
\n\tfor disbursement. Pursuant to the said order the Official Liquidator
\n\tengaged M\/s.Talati & Talati   Chartered Accountant for
\n\tverification of claim of the secured creditors. Since the Official
\n\tLiquidator has not filed any report for disbursement of the amount
\n\tin terms of the order dated 11.9.2009 passed in Company Application
\n\tNo.241 of 2009 the applicant has taken out the present Judges
\n\tSummons praying for disbursement.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Official Liquidator
\n\thas filed his report on 12.5.2010. Based on this report, Mr.Mrugesh
\n\tJani, learned advocate appearing for the Official Liquidator has
\n\tsubmitted that as per the order of this Court the Official
\n\tLiquidator invited claims of the workers and other creditors of the
\n\tCompany through an advertisement on 7.7.2009. He has further
\n\tsubmitted that the Official Liquidator was in receipt of following
\n\tclaims against the Company in liquidation.\n<\/p>\n
Sr.No.\n<\/p>\n
Name
\n\t\t\t\t\tof the Creditor<\/p>\n
Amount
\n\t\t\t\t\tRs.\n<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Union
\n\t\t\t\t\tBank of India <\/p>\n
1,24,54,004\/-\n<\/p>\n
2.<\/p>\n
IDBI<\/p>\n
5,58,05,086\/-\n<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
Bank
\n\t\t\t\t\tof Baroda<\/p>\n
2,84,49,584\/-\n<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
Workers
\n\t\t\t\t\t(84)<\/span><\/p>\n
  98,61,520\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total <\/p>\n
10,65,70,194<\/p>\n
 The
\n\taforesaid claim of the secured creditors of the Company and workers
\n\twas forwarded to M\/s.Talati & Talati Chartered Accountant vide
\n\tOfficial Liquidator’s letter dated 18.9.2009. The said Chartered
\n\tAccountant has submitted his report on 1.5.2010 regarding
\n\tverification of claim of the secured creditors and workers of the
\n\tcompany and also ratio of disbursement amongst the secured creditors
\n\tand workers. He has further submitted that on perusal of the report
\n\tdated 1.5.2010 of the Chartered Accountant, the claim of the secured
\n\tcreditors verified by him are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 Bank
\n\tof Baroda:-\n<\/p>\n
Amount
\n\tclaimed on 29.9.2004\t   Rs.2,64,22,143\/- <\/p>\n
\n\t\n\t \n\nAmount\n\tordered by DRT \t\t   Rs.2,64,22,143\/-\n\t \n\nwith\n<\/pre>\n
\tsimple interest @ 8% per annum until realization.\n<\/p>\n
 Union
\n\tBank of India:-\n<\/p>\n
Amount
\n\tclaimed on 1.8.2005\t   Rs.1,36,90,400\/- <\/p>\n
\n\t\n\t \n\nAmount\n\tordered by DRT  \t   \t   Rs.2,64,22,143\/-\n\t \n\non\n\t27.4.2009\n\t \n\n\n\twith simple interest @ 8%\n\tper annum until realization. \n\t\n\t \n\nIDBI:-\n\t \n\n\n\t \n\t\n\t \n\n\n\tAmount claimed as on\n\t18.3.2004  Rs.6,59,77,813\/-\n\t \n\n From\n<\/pre>\n
\tthe above, total claim of the secured creditors is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
Particulars<\/p>\n
Security<\/p>\n
Amount
\n\t\t\t\tof Claim<\/p>\n
Amount
\n\t\t\t\tadmitted<\/p>\n
Workers
\n\t\t\t\tclaim<\/p>\n
Preferential<\/p>\n
74,62,197\/-\n<\/p>\n
74,62,197\/-\n<\/p>\n
BOB<\/p>\n
First
\n\t\t\t\tCharge<\/p>\n
2,67,74,438\/-\n<\/p>\n
2,67,74,438\/-\n<\/p>\n
UBI<\/p>\n
First
\n\t\t\t\tCharge<\/p>\n
1,30,51,515\/-\n<\/p>\n
1,30,51,515\/-\n<\/p>\n
IDBI<\/p>\n
Second
\n\t\t\t\tCharge<\/p>\n
6,59,77,813\/-\n<\/p>\n
6,59,77,813\/-\n<\/p>\n
TOTAL<\/p>\n
11,32,65,963\/-\n<\/p>\n
11,32,65,963\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tBased on aforesaid amount
\n\tChartered Accountant has worked out the ratio of disbursement of
\n\tsale proceeds under Section-529A as under :-\n<\/p>\n
Secured
\n\t\t\t\tCreditors<\/p>\n
93.41%<\/p>\n
Workers<\/p>\n
06.59%<\/p>\n
TOTAL<\/p>\n
100.00%<\/p>\n
\tOn the basis of aforesaid
\n\tratio disbursement, taking into consideration the amount of Rs.8.00
\n\tcrores to be disbursed amongst the secured creditors and worker, the
\n\tsaid Chartered Accountants have also worked out following amount to
\n\tbe paid to the secured creditors and workers of the Company is as
\n\tunder :-\n<\/p>\n
Sr.No.\n<\/p>\n
Particulars<\/p>\n
Security<\/p>\n
Amount(Rs.)<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Bank
\n\t\t\t\tof Baroda<\/p>\n
First
\n\t\t\t\tCharge<\/p>\n
2,67,74,438\/-\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
Union
\n\t\t\t\tBank of India<\/p>\n
First
\n\t\t\t\tCharge<\/p>\n
1,30,51,515\/-\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
IDBI<\/p>\n
Second
\n\t\t\t\tCharge<\/p>\n
3,49,02,047\/-\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Workers<\/p>\n
52,72,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
TOTAL<\/p>\n
8,00,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Official Liquidator
\n\thas filed his further report on 10.6.2010 wherein it is stated that
\n\the is having total fund of Rs.8,49,41,226\/- in the Company’s Account
\n\tas on 31.5.2010.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. R.M.Desai, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing for IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., respondent
\n\tNo.3 herein has disputed the claim of the applicant Bank to be the
\n\tfirst charge holder on the assets of the Company in liquidation and
\n\talso disputed the report of the Chartered Accountants considering
\n\tthe respondent No.3 as the second charge holder. He has submitted
\n\tthat the respondent No.3 is secured creditor of Company in
\n\tliquidation having first charge. The applicant Union Bank of India
\n\tand\/or Bank of Baroda and\/or any of the Financial Institutions are
\n\tsecond charge holders. He has further submitted that any amount to
\n\tbe distributed to Union Bank of India and\/or Bank of Baroda only
\n\tafter dues      of respondent No.3 are satisfied. The amount lying
\n\twith the Official Liquidator is required to be distributed between
\n\tthe respondent No.3 and the workers as per provisions of law. He has
\n\tfurther submitted that dues of Banks and Financial Institutions in
\n\trespect of term loan facility are settled and as such assets which
\n\tare sold are secured in favour of the respondent No.3 as first
\n\tcharge holders and Union Bank of India and\/or Bank or Baroda are not
\n\tentitled to participate in the distribution.  He has further
\n\tsubmitted that Union Bank had pari passu charge for their term loan
\n\tand not for working capital facilities. The pari-passu charge is
\n\tsatisfied. The working capital facilities were secured by way of
\n\tsecond charge pari-passu with Bank of Baroda. The respondent No.3
\n\thad agreed for sharing of sale proceeds on pari-passu basis for term
\n\tloan and not for working capital facilities.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor working capital
\n\tfacilities Union Bank of India has admitted second charge in the
\n\tapplication filed in the Debts Recovery tribunal being Original
\n\tApplication No.156 of 2005. In Schedule-II of the application, the
\n\tUnion Bank of India has clearly stated the description of movable
\n\tand immovable property of the Company in liquidation mortgaged by
\n\tway of second charge. It is specific statement and admission that
\n\tthe Union Bank of India has second charge on the property of Company
\n\tin liquidation as described in Schedule-II of the said application.
\n\tHe has further submitted that despite the aforesaid statement being
\n\tmade by the Union Bank of India the Chartered Accountants, in their
\n\treport stated that Union Bank of India and Bank of Baroda are first
\n\tcharge holder and the respondent No.3 is the second charge holder.
\n\tHe has, therefore, submitted that the Chartered Account has given
\n\this report without any application of mind and hence no disbursement
\n\tcan be made on the basis of said report. He has further submitted
\n\tthat as per provisions of Section-48 of Transfer of Property Act,
\n\t1982, where a person purports to create by transfer at different
\n\ttimes rights in or over the same immoveable property, and such
\n\trights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent
\n\ttogether, each later created right, shall in the absence of a
\n\tspecial contract or reservation binding the earlier transferees, be
\n\tsubject to rights previously created. The charge was created in
\n\tfavour of the respondent No.3 on 24.4.1993 and in favour of Union
\n\tBank of India on 27.4.1997 which is subsequent to the charge created
\n\tin favour of the respondent No.3. He has, therefore, submitted that
\n\tthe respondent No.3 is required to be paid first and balance be paid
\n\tto Union Bank of India and\/or Bank of Baroda.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.B.D.Karia, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing for Bank of Baroda   respondent No.2 herein has
\n\tvirtually adopted the arguments of Ms.Lodha and submitted that Bank
\n\tof Baroda is rightly treated as first charge holder and disbursement
\n\tbe made accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs.Nalini Lodha, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing for the applicant in rejoinder has submitted that
\n\tthe attempt on the part of the respondent No.3 to claim that Union
\n\tBank of India has second charge on properties of the Company in
\n\tliquidation on the basis of averments made in the Original
\n\tApplication No.156 of 2005 is of no avail in view of the specific
\n\tfinding given in para-3 of the operative part of the order dated
\n\t27.4.2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad wherein
\n\trespondent No.3 is a party. The said finding is based on the written
\n\tstatement filed by the respondent No.3 before DRT in response to the
\n\taverments made by the applicant in the said Original Application.
\n\tShe has, therefore, submitted that there is no substance in the
\n\tcontention raised by the respondent No.3 that the respondent No.3
\n\thad agreed for sharing of sale proceeds on pari passu basis for term
\n\tloan and not for working capital facilities. She has further
\n\tsubmitted that the judgment and order passed by the DRT is binding
\n\tto the respondent No.3 and it is not open to the respondent No.3 to
\n\tdispute the rank on the basis of what is stated in the Original
\n\tApplication ignoring the written statement filed in reply to the
\n\tmemo of Original Application and judgment and order dated 27.4.2009
\n\tpassed by the DRT. She has, therefore, submitted that the
\n\tdisbursement be made on the basis of report submitted by the
\n\tChartered Accountant.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving heard the learned
\n\tcounsels appearing for the parties and having considered their rival
\n\tsubmission in light of the documents produced on record, their
\n\trespective claims with proof of debts, creation of charge over the
\n\tassets of the Company in liquidation, proceedings before Debt
\n\tRecovery Tribunal and orders passed therein, verification of claims
\n\tmade by the Chartered Accountants, the Court is of the view that
\n\tthere does not appear to be any error or infirmity in the report of
\n\tthe Chartered Accountant and disbursement can be made on that basis.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true that the
\n\tapplicant Bank, in its Original Application No.156 of 2005 filed
\n\tbefore the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad has stated that the
\n\tCompany in liquidation has mortgaged its movable plant and machinery
\n\tand immovable properties situate at B\/1 to B\/3, GIDC Electronics
\n\tEstate, Gandhinagar to the applicant Bank and Bank of Baroda to
\n\tsecure the working capital facilities advanced to the Company in
\n\tliquidation by way of second charge on pari-passu basis with Bank of
\n\tBaroda subject to the first change of  Industrial Development Bank
\n\tof India, Industrial Finance Corporation of India, Industrial Credit
\n\tand Investment Corporation of India Ltd., Bank of Baroda and the
\n\tapplicant Bank for their respective term loans\/foreign currency
\n\tloans. However, the said loans of the said Financial Institutions
\n\tappeared to have been repaid. It is equally true that the respondent
\n\tNo.3 has filed its written statement in the said Original
\n\tApplication No.156 of 2005, wherein, it is stated that the charges
\n\tand mortgages created by the Company in liquidation on all its fixed
\n\tassets, in favour of the present respondent No.3 for securing the
\n\tdebentures are to be ranked as first charge in favour of the present
\n\trespondent No.3 and the applicant Bank, without any preference or
\n\tany priority of one over the other or others. It is also stated by
\n\tthe respondent No.3 that whatever amounts paid and\/or to be paid by
\n\tthe Official Liquidator to the applicant after filing of the said
\n\tapplication, are required to be shared by the applicant with the
\n\trespondent No.3 on pro-rata basis.\n<\/p>\n
\tBased on the above
\n\tpleadings of the parties the Debt Recovery Tribunal in its order
\n\tdated 27.4.2009 held that the applicant and respondent No.2 i.e.
\n\tBank of Baroda have first pari-passu charge over the assets
\n\tdescribed in Schedule-I of the application, which refers to
\n\tdescription of hypothecated movable properties of the Company in
\n\tliquidation. It is further held by the Debt Recovery Tribunal that
\n\tthe applicant, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 have first
\n\tpari-passu charge over the properties described in Schedule-II of
\n\tthe application, which refers to the description of movable and
\n\timmovable properties of the Company in liquidation mortgaged by way
\n\tof second charge.\n<\/p>\n
\tEven in the Debenture
\n\tTrust Deed dated 18.3.1994 executed by the Company in liquidation in
\n\tfavour of the respondent No.3, it is clearly revealed that the
\n\tcharge operates as security by way of second charge, inter alia, for
\n\tthe redemption by the Company of the 15% secured partly convertible
\n\tdebenture at the aggregate value of Rs.228 lacs, together with
\n\tinterest   liquidated damages and all other money’s payable by the
\n\tcompany to the trustees.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter considering the
\n\tvarious documents the Chartered Accountant arrived at the conclusion
\n\tthat the applicant Bank and Bank of Baroda have first charge and the
\n\trespondent No.3 had executed Trust Deed and as per the agreement in
\n\the Trust Deed and as per Form No.10 filled by the respondent No.3 it
\n\tstands as a second charge-holder. He has worked out the ratio of
\n\tsecured creditors and workers at 93.41 : 06.59. Based on this ratio
\n\tand taking into account the available fund of Rs.8\/- crores for
\n\tdisbursement, he has determined the amount to be disbursed amongst
\n\tsecured creditors and workers as under:-\n<\/p>\n
Sr.No.\n<\/p>\n
Name
\n\t\t\t\t\tof the Creditor<\/p>\n
Amount
\n\t\t\t\t\tRs.\n<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Bank
\n\t\t\t\t\tof Baroda<\/p>\n
2,57,74,438\/-\n<\/p>\n
2.<\/p>\n
Union
\n\t\t\t\t\tBank of India <\/p>\n
1,30,51,515\/-\n<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
IDBI<\/p>\n
3,49,02,047\/-\n<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
Workers
\n\t\t\t\t\t(84)<\/span><\/p>\n
  52,72,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total <\/p>\n
800,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the above
\n\tdiscussion, the Official Liquidator is hereby directed to disburse
\n\tthe above amount in favour of the three secured creditors, after
\n\tobtaining an usual undertaking from them. The workers shall be paid
\n\ttheir dues as indicated above after proper verification and
\n\tidentification, either by Account Payee Cheque \/ Bankers’ Cheque or
\n\tby availing E-Banking facilities. The secured creditors shall be
\n\tpaid the amount on or before 15.10.2010 and the workers shall be
\n\tpaid on or before 25.10.2010.\n<\/p>\n
\tWith this directions and
\n\tobservations, the application is accordingly disposed off.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(K.\n<\/p>\n
A. PUJ, J.)<\/p>\n
kks<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Union vs O on 29 September, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print COMA\/122\/2010 19\/ 21 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD COMPANY APPLICATION No. 122 of 2010 In COMPANY PETITION No. 169 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters […]<\/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-261026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion vs O on 29 September, 2010 - 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\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union vs O on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-10T05:47:50+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union vs O on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-10T05:47:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2721,\"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\\\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Union vs O on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-10T05:47:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union vs O on 29 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Union vs O on 29 September, 2010 - 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\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union vs O on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-10T05:47:50+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union vs O on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-10T05:47:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":2721,"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\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010","name":"Union vs O on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-10T05:47:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-vs-o-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union vs O on 29 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/261026","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=261026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}