Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CO.Appeal. 19/2013 S BAKEMANSINDUSTRIESPVT LTD. Appellant
Through Mr.VikasPahwa,Sr. Adv.with Mr.Abhinit Das,Adv.
CO.Appeal. 19/2013 S BAKEMANSINDUSTRIESPVT LTD. Appellant
Through Mr.VikasPahwa,Sr. Adv.with Mr.Abhinit Das,Adv.
VERSUS
H 5 CEYLON BISCUITSPVTLTD.& ORS. Respondents
Through Mr.C.A.Sundaram,Sr. Adv.with Mr.Prashanto Chandrasen,Adv.for
R-1.
Ml'. Rajiv Bahl,Adv.for Official Liquidator.
Through Mr.C.A.Sundaram,Sr. Adv.with Mr.Prashanto Chandrasen,Adv.for
R-1.
Ml'. Rajiv Bahl,Adv.for Official Liquidator.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
06.03.2013 CM No.3945/2013(exemption)
Exemption is allowed subjecttojust exceptions.
CM Nos.3946-47/2013(condonation of delay)
Notice which is accepted by learned counsels for respondents No. 1 and 6.
In view ofthe averments set out in the applications,the delay in filing and re-filing is condoned and the applications are allowed.
Co.Appeal No.19/2013 On hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned counsel for the appellant states that he has obtained instructions and he does not want to press the appeal.
2013:DHC:8292-DB It is,however, pointed outthat respondent No. 1 was in possession of the factory premises ofthe appellant Company(represented through Official
Liquidator) even after the Supreme Court had set aside the auction in its favour. This was in view of the direction of the Supreme Court dated
16.05.2008 which while setting aside the auction directed that till the final order is passed qua the auction ofthe property ofthe appellant, respondent
No. 1 would continue to be in occupation but in the capacity of a Receiver ofthe court. The functioning ofthe factory thus came to a standstill though the respondent No.1continued to act as the Receiver under the orders ofthe
Supreme Court.
It appears that in view ofthe non-payment ofdues ofthe Punjab State
Electricity Board (PSEB), the electricity was disconnected and thus respondent No. 1 filed an application i.e. Co. Appl. 1457/2008 seeking an interim order since the security ofthe plant and machinery and the land was with respondent No. 1 in the capacity of a Receiver. Learned Company
Judge vide order dated 18.12.2008 found sufficient cause to direct restoration of the electricity as otherwise it may imperil the safety and security ofthe premises as well as the valuable machinery located therein.
The electricity was thus restored by the Punjab State Electricity Board.
It appears that all parties lost sight ofan important aspect i.e. that the requirement of electricity was only for the purposes oflighting for security and not for the complete functioning ofthe plant and machinery. Since the load continued to be the same, the PSEB has imposed charges on that basis which has accumulated to a very large amount even though there was no user ofthe electricity.
The PSEB filed an application i.e. C.A. 1280/2012 on account of its accumulated dues since no directions had been passed by the learned
Company Judge qua the liability ofthe charges while directing reconnection.
PSEB thus sought payment of Rs. 63,77,374/- being the statutory dues towards electricity along with penalty and interest.
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsels for the parties present before us agree that since now the Official Liquidator has to entertain the claims as per the direction No. (vii) dated 08.01.2013, it would be appropriate to put to the PSEB that given the factual situation aforesaid that only actual user charges should be treated as the dues, as in any case, otherwise it may be difficult to recover the dues by the PSEB. This aspect would be explored by the Official Liquidator with the PSEB while examining the claim ofthe PSEB.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid observations.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J L INDERMEET KAUR,J MARCH 06,2013 rb
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
06.03.2013 CM No.3945/2013(exemption)
Exemption is allowed subjecttojust exceptions.
CM Nos.3946-47/2013(condonation of delay)
Notice which is accepted by learned counsels for respondents No. 1 and 6.
In view ofthe averments set out in the applications,the delay in filing and re-filing is condoned and the applications are allowed.
Co.Appeal No.19/2013 On hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned counsel for the appellant states that he has obtained instructions and he does not want to press the appeal.
2013:DHC:8292-DB It is,however, pointed outthat respondent No. 1 was in possession of the factory premises ofthe appellant Company(represented through Official
Liquidator) even after the Supreme Court had set aside the auction in its favour. This was in view of the direction of the Supreme Court dated
16.05.2008 which while setting aside the auction directed that till the final order is passed qua the auction ofthe property ofthe appellant, respondent
No. 1 would continue to be in occupation but in the capacity of a Receiver ofthe court. The functioning ofthe factory thus came to a standstill though the respondent No.1continued to act as the Receiver under the orders ofthe
Supreme Court.
It appears that in view ofthe non-payment ofdues ofthe Punjab State
Electricity Board (PSEB), the electricity was disconnected and thus respondent No. 1 filed an application i.e. Co. Appl. 1457/2008 seeking an interim order since the security ofthe plant and machinery and the land was with respondent No. 1 in the capacity of a Receiver. Learned Company
Judge vide order dated 18.12.2008 found sufficient cause to direct restoration of the electricity as otherwise it may imperil the safety and security ofthe premises as well as the valuable machinery located therein.
The electricity was thus restored by the Punjab State Electricity Board.
It appears that all parties lost sight ofan important aspect i.e. that the requirement of electricity was only for the purposes oflighting for security and not for the complete functioning ofthe plant and machinery. Since the load continued to be the same, the PSEB has imposed charges on that basis which has accumulated to a very large amount even though there was no user ofthe electricity.
The PSEB filed an application i.e. C.A. 1280/2012 on account of its accumulated dues since no directions had been passed by the learned
Company Judge qua the liability ofthe charges while directing reconnection.
PSEB thus sought payment of Rs. 63,77,374/- being the statutory dues towards electricity along with penalty and interest.
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsels for the parties present before us agree that since now the Official Liquidator has to entertain the claims as per the direction No. (vii) dated 08.01.2013, it would be appropriate to put to the PSEB that given the factual situation aforesaid that only actual user charges should be treated as the dues, as in any case, otherwise it may be difficult to recover the dues by the PSEB. This aspect would be explored by the Official Liquidator with the PSEB while examining the claim ofthe PSEB.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid observations.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J L INDERMEET KAUR,J MARCH 06,2013 rb
JUDGMENT