Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Labour Law | Claims for Statutory Interest Must Be Timely and Well-Founded: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Workmen’s Appeals

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment on May 14, 2024, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed appeals filed by workmen of UMI Special Steel Ltd., who sought statutory interest on their salary arrears following the company’s liquidation. The court upheld the decision of a Single Judge, emphasizing that the claims for interest lacked a proper legal foundation and were not raised during the initial proceedings. The bench, comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, ruled that the claims did not meet the necessary criteria under Rule 156 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

The appeals arose from a common order dated November 1, 2018, which rejected the workmen’s application for statutory interest on arrears of salary after UMI Special Steel Ltd. Entered liquidation in 2003. The workmen initially received a settlement for their dues, but later filed for statutory interest accrued on the delayed payments. The Single Judge dismissed their claims, prompting the appeals under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Credibility of Initial Proceedings: The court underscored that the workmen’s claims for arrears were settled based on the Official Liquidator’s admissions. However, the demand for statutory interest emerged post-settlement, lacking any initial adjudication or contractual basis. “The claim for interest was never raised during the initial adjudication, and the subsequent application for interest lacks the foundation of a contractual or statutory provision,” the bench observed.

Legal Reasoning on Rule 156: The bench examined Rule 156 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which allows creditors to claim interest on overdue debts at the time of the winding-up order. The court noted that the rule applies where interest is not reserved or agreed upon, and no demand for interest was made by the workmen initially. “In the present case, the workmen did not make any claim for interest during the original proceedings, and thus, cannot now seek to apply Rule 156 retroactively,” the court stated.

Distinction from Precedent Cases: The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Industries vs. NATL Technologies Ltd., where a specific contract clause provided for interest. “The judgment in Vijay Industries pertained to a specific contract clause providing for interest. In contrast, the workmen here lack such a contractual or statutory basis for claiming interest,” the court clarified.

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad remarked, “The claim for statutory interest by the workmen, without having raised it in the initial proceedings and in the absence of a contractual or statutory provision, cannot be entertained at this stage.”

The dismissal of the appeals underscores the court’s strict adherence to procedural integrity and statutory interpretation. By rejecting the workmen’s claims for statutory interest, the judgment reinforces the necessity of raising all claims at the appropriate stage in liquidation proceedings. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future cases involving liquidation and claims for interest, setting a precedent for the treatment of delayed interest claims in the absence of explicit contractual provisions

Date of Decision: May 14, 2024

Gopal Mahto & Nand Keshwar Prasad vs. The Official Liquidator, Jharkhand High Court & Ors.

Similar News