1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.604 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.311 OF 1986 Mr.Rajkumar Gurwada .. Org.Petitioner Versus M/s.Paper and Pulp Conversion Ltd .. Org.Respondent And Standard Chartered Bank .. Applicant/Intervener Versus Official Liquidator of M/s.Paper & Pulp Conversion Ltd & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Faizal Sayyed i/by M.K.Ambalal & Co for the applicant. Mr.Sachin Joshi for respondent No.2. Mr.Darshan Mehta i/by Dhruve Liladhar & Co for respondent No.3. Dr.T.Pandian, Official Liquidator present. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28th January 2011. P.C.: . Heard learned advocates appearing for the applicant and the Official Liquidator. On 29th April 2010 this Court passed an order allowing prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the report of the Official Liquidator dated 27th April 2010. 2 The prayers (a) and (b) of the said report read as under: 2 “(a) Whether in view of para 4 of this report this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct Hon’ble DRT to release an amount of Rs.20,86,80,731/- towards the claim of 753 workers and staff members in favour of Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay from the funds lying with the Hon’ble DRT and allow the Official Liquidator to pay and distribute the same under section 529A & 530 of the Companies Act, 1956, (b) Whether in view of para 4 of this report, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct Hon’ble DRT to make additional provision of Rs. 1,94,80,737/- towards claims pending for adjudication of 98 workers.” 3 The Official Liquidator submitted this report to the Court presumably to protect the interest of the workers because he stated that he had published an advertisement inviting claims of the workmen. Accordingly, the claims were submitted, they were scrutinised and verified by him and it is stated in the report that he has verified and scrutinised a number of such claims but 98 claims are pending adjudication for want of proof. The amount of claim in these 98 claims is Rs.1,94,80,737/-. At the same time, the liquidator states that sale of immovable and movable properties of the company in liquidation was initiated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The sale was concluded, confirmed and the sale proceeds are lying with the Recovery Officer. 4 On a plain reading of the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions, (for short the RDB Act 1993) and section 529-A of the Companies 3 Act, 1956 so also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank Vs. Canara Bank reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1535 which has been followed subsequently, it is conceded that the liquidator could not have sought any directions from the the learned Company Judge in terms of this report. 5 In the result, the order dated 29th April 2010 allowing the said report is recalled and set aside. The Official Liquidator can make an appropriate application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and seek its assistance so as to disburse the amounts due to the workers and I have no doubt in my mind that the mandate of section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956 would be adhered to by it. All contentions of the parties in that behalf are kept open. 6 Company Application (Lodging) No.23 of 2011 does not survive in the light of this order and the same is dismissed as such. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)