IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 Co.Appeal.No. 25 of 2011 -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER Dated 24/02/2011 IN CA 112/2011 IN CP.1/1996 OF THE COMPANY COURT) .................... APPELLANT (S):APPLICANT: ----------------------------------------- RAVI KUMAR SHARMA, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. BALDEVRAJ SHARMA, PLOT NO.22, DEEPAK SADAN, SHREYAS NAGAR, AURANGABAD, NOW RESIDING AT K2, CHETNA NAGAR, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA STATE-431005. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.SAJU J PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, CARMEL BUILDINGS, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING M/S. TOSHIBA ANAND BATTERIES LTD.,(IN LIQUIDATION). BY ADV. SRI.K.MONI THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- Company Appeal No.25 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Company Judge rejecting a Company Application filed by the appellant. The Company Application was filed to condone the delay of 4697 days in filing the claim for service benefits before the Official Liquidator. The appellant was an employee of the Bombay office of the company in liquidation. Appellant sought service benefits. The company in liquidation filed claim against the appellant. That was disposed of on 19.10.2010 and therefore he could file the proof of debt only after the disposal of the same, it is stated. Learned Company Judge found that it is not a good reason and pendency of the claim did not bar him from filing proof of debt before the Official Liquidator and dismissed the company application. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that C.P.1/1996 filed before the Company COA 25/2011 -2- Court against the appellant and others was pending. He is a person residing in Aurangabad, Maharashtra far away from this place. Learned counsel would also submit that the appellant alone was exonerated from liability in the Company Claim filed by the company in liquidation. He has also got a case that there was a claim by the company for Rs.25.77 lakhs against appellant and others and there was no purpose in filing proof of debt pertaining to service benefits. 3. In the circumstance of the case, we take a liberal view. After all the appellant is a workman and he is trying to get his service benefits. Nobody will be affected as such. We allow the company appeal. The application also stands allowed. We further make it clear that, it is for the appellant to file claim before the respondent within three weeks from today. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS