IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA COMPANY APPLICATION NO.408 OF 2015 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.68 OF 1997 BETWEEN:
U. KULKARNI S/O KRISHNA KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT 2ND FLOOR VAIBHAV APARTMENTS SARASWATHPURA DHARWAD - 02 … APPLICANT (BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV. FOR M/S. SUBBA RAO & CO., ADVs.) AND:
THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S SWEDE (INDIA) TELTRONICS LIMITED ATTACHED TO THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS BANGALORE – 01 … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, ADV. FOR OL) THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULES 6 AND 9 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES 1959 PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY A SUM OF RS.1,14,857/- WHICH IS ADMITTED AS UNSECURED ORDINARY CLAIM BY TREATING THE SAME AS PREFERENTIAL.
THIS APPLICATION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The applicant is before this Court seeking that the respondent – Official Liquidator be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,857/- which is admitted to be the unsecured ordinary claim, by treating the same as preferential.
2. Perused the reasons indicated in the affidavit accompanying the application and also the order passed by this Court in CA No.1641/2014 dated 29.04.2015 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant to contend that the amount as claimed be ordered since the consideration has been made therein. Though that be the position, the subsequent development which has taken place in respect of very respondent – company cannot be lost sight.
3. The learned counsel representing the Official Liquidator has brought to the notice of this Court, the order passed by this Court dated 13.07.2017 in OLR No.77/2017. This Court on taking note that the amount available to the credit of the respondent – company was only a sum of Rs.9,26,088/- had accepted the prayer made in the said OLR No.77/2017 wherein the proposal was put forth by the Official Liquidator to declare the dividend at 0.2223 to the 32 employees who had been named in the said OLR.
4. The fact that the applicant herein would also be entitled to similar payment cannot be in dispute when the claim of the other employees has been taken note in such a manner by this Court. If that be the position, the prayer to pay quantum of the amount as claimed in the application at this point would not arise.
5. However, the Official Liquidator shall take steps to pay the amount to the extent as permitted by this Court in OLR No.77/2017. It is however made clear that if in future any further amounts are realized by the Official Liquidator, appropriate order shall be obtained at that stage to make further payments to all the creditors including the applicant on pro-rata basis.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE GH