COCP No.1373 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1373 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:___________ M/s Varsed Detective and Security(P) Ltd. .... petitioner Versus K.K.Ohri, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Vishal Aggarwal,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.: CM No.17693-CII of 2009 CM is allowed as prayed for. COCP No.1373 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner- company is engaged in providing security services to the assets/properties of various companies. The petitioner-company is also on the panel of the Official Liquidator attached with the Company Judge of this Court for providing security services to the assets/immovable property of the companies in liquidation. The work of security is allotted to the petitioner- Company by the Official Liquidator. The petitioner-Company was allotted the work of security of properties of M/s Indersons Steel Forge(P)Ltd.(in liquidation). According to COCP No.1373 of 2009 2 the petitioner, the respondent Punjab National Bank is secured creditor of the aforesaid company in liquidation. The petitioner submitted his bills for the services provided by him from time to time to the Official Liquidator. Since, no payment was made, petitioner filed CP No.119 of 2007 in this Court against the Official Liquidator directing him to release the amount due. The Company Judge, vide order dated 15.05.2009 disposed of the aforesaid petition by issuing the following guidelines: “All the applications filed by the security agencies under the circumstances deserve to be allowed. The objections filed by the Official Liquidator seeking for directions of the respective secured creditors are also ordered and the ultimate disposition is that the Official Liquidator shall forthwith make all the payments for the security staff authorized to be deployed by the respective agencies by examining the list of persons said to have been deployed and working out the rates as payable to the respective security agencies on the basis of rates agreed already together with the service charges as contemplated in the initial orders of engagement. The claims of the security agencies shall be tested only on the authorized strength of the staff and deductions shall be made in relation to specific instances of specific dates when any staff was found to be missing or when it was found that the staff had not been really in their roll of employment. Nothing could come out of the earlier directions for requirement of proof of payment of Provident Fund or ESI contributions now. The only way of dealing with such situations is to discontinue such Security Agencies and not deny them their entitlements. In the COCP No.1373 of 2009 3 absence of any specific condition in the terms of engagement that the claims would be entertained and amounts would be disbursed only on proof of payment of ESI or Provident Fund to particular number of staff in their employment, neither the Official Liquidator nor the secured creditors could make an issue out of non-furnishing of such proof for denial of the respective claims. The entire process of clarification of records in relation to each one of the security agencies shall be completed within a period of 30 days and the amounts as found on a proper reckoning shall be disbursed from out of the amounts available to the credit of the respective companies in liquidation and wherever they are not available, the secured creditors in relation to the assets where the security personnel had been deployed shall be liable to make the payments and claim refund when the assets were sold and when amounts are realized in excess of what have been paid by the secured creditors.” According to the petitioner, the respondent has failed to make the payment and have thus, committed contempt of this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the order of the Company Judge would show that directions have been issued to the Official Liquidator to make the payment for the security staff authorized to be deployed by the respective agencies. The Company Judge vide order dated 15.5.2009 also laid down the manner in which such claim of the security agencies shall be tested and entertained and after completing the entire process, the amount would be disbursed by examining their respective claims and finding the amount available from the credit of company in liquidation and where no such amount is available, secured creditor shall be liable to pay and claim refund COCP No.1373 of 2009 4 later on. There is no direction by the Company Judge to the respondent to make the payment to the petitioner. It is for the Official Liquidator to claim the expenses of the aforesaid security companies from the secured creditors. Strangely, the petitioner is silent about the fact as to what steps were taken by the Official Liquidator to ascertain the amount available to the credit of company in liquidation. In any case if the secured creditor has failed to make the payment as per the second part of the order dated 15.5.2009, it is for the Official Liquidator to take necessary steps against the secured creditors. It seems that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner with an ulterior motive to get the money released to the Official Liquidator by using the threat of the contempt of this Court. Thus, I am satisfied that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The petition is dismissed . (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 07.08.2009 neenu