Co. App.77/2011 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th December, 2011. + CO. APP. 77/2011 % RAJIV SARIN ….…Appellant Through: Mr. Mayank Kumar, Adv. Versus M/S DURABLE ELECTRICALS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mayank Goel, Adv. CORAM :- HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW JUDGMENT RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The Ex-Director of the Company in liquidation assails the order dated 29.09.2011 of the learned Company Judge directing the Ex-Director to make balance payment of `12,44,630/- on account of Employees Provident Fund dues to the Official Liquidator within a period of six weeks. The appellant had earlier, on 15.04.2010 given an undertaking to the learned Company Judge that the demand of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), as scrutinized by the Official Liquidator and communicated to the Co. App.77/2011 Page 2 of 3 appellant, shall be paid. In the order dated 12.08.2010, it is recorded that certain clarifications were still awaited from the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) and as such directions for payment of any amount to the EPFO were deferred and liberty was granted to the Official Liquidator to seek appropriate orders in this regard on receipt of full clarification from the EPFO. However, the order dated 07.10.2010 records that the claim of EPFO of `19,44,623/- stood admitted by the Official Liquidator and accordingly the appellant was directed to pay the said amount. On 18.08.2011, it was observed that since the claim of RPFC has already been adjudicated by the Official Liquidator, the only way to challenge the same was by way of an appeal and the appellant was given liberty to challenge the determination of liability by the Official Liquidator by filing an appeal. 2. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, on the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the claim of RPFC had not been finalized by the Official Liquidator, we called for Mr. Mayank Goel, Advocate for the Official Liquidator, who on instructions states that in fact the claim of the RPFC has not been finalized by the Official Liquidator as yet. Co. App.77/2011 Page 3 of 3 3. In view of the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the Official Liquidator, the direction to the appellant to make the balance payment of `12,44,623/- is set aside and the Official Liquidator is directed to finalize the said claim. The appellant in terms of his undertaking shall however be liable to pay the amount so finalized by the Official Liquidator. It is further clarified that if the appellant remains dissatisfied, he will be entitled to take proceedings under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The appeal is disposed of. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 12, 2011 ‘gsr’..