2006 Supreme(SC) 532

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & R.V. Raveendran
Radheshyam Ajitsaria & Anr. PETITIONER
versus
Bengal Chatkal Mazdoor Union & Ors. RESPONDENT

Appeal (civil) 4101-4103 of 2004
SLP(C) Nos. 6257-6258 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 5906 and 5907 of 2004
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4101-4103 OF 2004
Decided on: 24/05/2006

The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the dues shown against the members of Nemani Group were shown by themselves and that dues of the Nemani Group have not been adjudicated by the High Court or by the Registrar. The High Court also erred in holding that the claims of the petitioner had not been adjudicated which was clearly contrary to the report of the Registrar, original side, which was accepted by both the Judges as well as the Division Bench.

Headnote:

The High Court erred in holding that the dues shown against the members of Nemani Group were shown by themselves and that dues of the Nemani Group have not been adjudicated by the High Court or by the Registrar. The High Court also erred in holding that the claims of the petitioner had not been adjudicated which was clearly contrary to the report of the Registrar, original side, which was accepted by both the Judges as well as the Division Bench.

Fact of the Case:

Baranagore Jute Mills PLC (the Company) was under the management of Jardine Henderson Limited. On the failure of the jute factory to pay dues of several of its creditors, various winding-up petitions were filed in the High Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. By an order dated 28.10.1987, the Company Judge directed winding-up of the Company. The Court appointed the Official Liquidator with a direction to take possession of the assets of the said Company. An application was made by one - Shri Raj Kumar Nemani praying for stay of the winding-up proceedings of the Company and for revival of the Company as per a Scheme submitted and for appointment of an ad hoc Committee of Management to run the affairs of the said Company. The six Unions agreed to the Scheme as it was to the benefit of the workers. The learned Company Judge stayed the winding up by order dated 15.9.1988 and appointed an ad-hoc Committee of Management to re-open the mills, but however maintained the assets of the Company under the Official Liquidator. One of the creditors filed an appeal against the order dated 15.09.1988. An interim order was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court appointing Joint Special Officers under whose supervision the Committee of Management was to be constituted on an ad-hoc basis with other directions. Mr. Raj Kumar Nemani being aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.1988 passed by the Division Bench filed a special leave petition before this Court on 07.10.1988 and this Court, by an order dated 30.11.1988 directed that the scheme proposed by Raj Kumar Nemani supported by the workers and unsecured creditors be accepted with a direction for implementation of detailed Scheme. The learned Company Judge was directed to work out the Scheme.

Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench of the High Court was not entitled to allow the appeal without first deciding the maintainability of the appeals as directed in terms of the order dated 29.3.2001. The Division Bench of the High Court was not entitled to withhold the payment of the pre-scheme unsecured creditors in view of the specific direction given by this Court on 31.3.1994. The Division Bench was not entitled to direct re-adjudication of the claims, which were already adjudicated contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 30.11.1998 and 1.12.1998. The workers cannot have any stake and have right to receive any payment from the fund lying with the Registrar original side of the High Court of Calcutta which was specially earmarked for the pre-scheme unsecured creditors as defined in the Scheme. The finding and decision of the learned Company Jude can be ignored and/or overlooked on the ground that no enquiry was held by the Registrar.

Issues: Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was entitled to allow the appeal without first deciding the maintainability of the appeals as directed in terms of the order dated 29.3.2001? Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was entitled to withhold the payment of the pre-scheme unsecured creditors in view of the specific direction given by this Court on 31.3.1994? Whether the Division Bench was entitled to direct re-adjudication of the claims, which were already adjudicated contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 30.11.1998 and 1.12.1998? Whether the workers can have any stake and have right to receive any payment from the fund lying with the Registrar original side of the High Court of Calcutta which was specially earmarked for the pre-scheme unsecured creditors as defined in the Scheme? Whether the finding and decision of the learned Company Jude can be ignored and/or overlooked on the ground that no enquiry was held by the Registrar?

Ratio Decidendi: The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the dues shown against the members of Nemani Group were shown by themselves and that dues of the Nemani Group have not been adjudicated by the High Court or by the Registrar. The High Court also erred in holding that the claims of the petitioner had not been adjudicated which was clearly contrary to the report of the Registrar, original side, which was accepted by both the Judges as well as the Division Bench.

Final Decision: The appeals and special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.