Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 425 (JHR)

Pappu Singh v. UMI Special Steel Ltd.

2014-03-26

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Judgment The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 21.11.2008 passed in Company Appeal No. 2 of 2007, whereby the company appeal filed against the order of the Official Liquidator dated 25.4.2007 has been dismissed, in and by which, the learned Single Judge observed that the appellant has not produced any documents in support of their claim. 2. The father of the appellants was working in the company as watchman, died on 19.01.1997. This Court vide order dated 26.04.2007 in Company Petition No. 2 of 2002 has passed the order that if any workman has died, the amount may be paid to his legal heirs only after the Official Liquidator is fully satisfied about their genuineness and their claim that they are the only legal heirs. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Official Liquidator issued notice dated 20/21.02.2007 to Smt. Ramawati Kuar calling upon her to produce the documents in support of her claim, i.e. (1). Appointment letter and Identity Card issued by the Company (2). Provident Fund Contribution Slip (3). E.S.I. Card (4). Pay Slip for last salary drawn or any evidence in proof of last salary drawn and (5). Any further evidence in support of your claim. 3. According to the appellant, the mother of the appellants submitted a detailed chart with respect to dues of late Kapildeo Singh upon the company. But the Official Liquidator vide letter dated 25.4.2007 rejected the claim of the mother of the appellants on the ground of non-submission of documentary evidence relating to claim and the same was communicated to the mother of the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Official Liquidator, the mother of the appellants filed company appeal, being Company Appeal No. 2 of 2007, in which, the learned Single Judge by dismissing the Company Appeal, held that a sum of Rs. 1,23,742.50 was already paid to the mother of the appellant by the company under liquidation and the appellants have not filed any document to show that they have got any further claim. The learned Single Judge further held the claim of the appellants has rightly been rejected by the official liquidator. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of Company Appeal No. 2 of 2007, the appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mrs. The learned Single Judge further held the claim of the appellants has rightly been rejected by the official liquidator. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of Company Appeal No. 2 of 2007, the appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mrs. Manjushree Patra, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Official Liquidator outrightly rejected the claim of the appellants without affording any opportunity to the mother of the appellants to produce documents. It was further submitted that the Official Liquidator and also the Company Court ought to have passed the order directing the appellant to pay gratuity, leave salary, salary/wages for about 21 months and other claim of the appellants. Learned counsel further submitted that at least an opportunity be given to the appellants to substantiate their claim before the Official Liquidator. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the official liquidator opposed the claim of the appellants and submitted that the appellants had not produced any document to substantiate their claim. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that an opportunity shall be given to the appellants to substantiate their claim regarding the payment of any dues, if any, by producing necessary documents in support of their claim. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.11.2008 passed in Company Appeal No. 2 of 2007 is set aside and this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The appellants are directed to approach the Official Liquidator and make their claim along with supporting documents in support of their claim within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. On such claim being made by the appellant, the Official Liquidator after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant shall pass necessary order in accordance with law.