Bombay High Court
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF SHETTY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. (IN PROV. LIQN.)versusMRS. MOTEE J.MORMUEDI (PETITIONER)
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ARIF S DOCTOR
Holding
The Court allowed the Official Liquidator’s report, permitting the dividend payment to the second secured creditor and dispensing with the procedural requirements under Rules 276 and 290.
Summary
The Official Liquidator filed a report seeking the Court’s permission to declare and pay a dividend of Rs.6,01,484 to the second secured creditor, Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., under Section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956. The liquidator also requested exemption from the newspaper advertisement requirement of Rule 276, the need to open a separate dividend account under Rule 290, and sought a six‑month period for payment with any unclaimed amounts to be transferred to the Companies Liquidation Account under Section 555. The liquidator demonstrated that the first secured creditor, Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., had already received its full dividend, and detailed the claims and dividends paid to each creditor. The Court examined whether these procedural relaxations were permissible and found the report satisfactory. Consequently, the Court allowed all the prayers (a) to (d), authorising the dividend payment and the procedural dispensations.
Issues considered
- Whether the Court may permit the Official Liquidator to declare and pay a dividend to the second secured creditor under Section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956.
- Whether the requirements of Rule 276 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 regarding newspaper advertisement can be dispensed with.
- Whether the requirement to open a separate dividend account under Rule 290 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 can be waived.
- Whether the dividend can be paid within six months and unclaimed amounts transferred to the Companies Liquidation Account under Section 555 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Legislation cited
- Companies Act, 1956 — s. 529, 555
Subjects
- dividend
- liquidation
- secured creditor
- Companies Act 1956
- Official Liquidator
- Rule 276
- Rule 290
- NEFT
- RTGS
Judgment
1/3 902-OLR-65-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR REPORT NO. 65 OF 2026
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 990 OF 2002
In the matter of the Companies
Act,1956
And
In the matter of Shetty Coastal
Development Pvt Ltd. (in Liquidation)
Mrs. Motee J. Mormuedi ...Petitioner
_______
Ms. Apurva Thipsay, for Official Liquidator.
Mr. Satyajit Roul, Official Liquidator present.
Mr. Chetan Shelke, Deputy Official Liquidator present.
_______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 18th MARCH 2026
P.C.
1. Heard Ms. Thipsay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Official
Official Liquidator, who by way of the captioned Official Liquidator Report seeks
the following directions/ order:
“a) In view of Para (11) above, whether this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
permit the Official Liquidator to declare dividend @1.24 paise in a rupee
out of the funds available to the credit of the Company (In Prov.Liqn.) for the
sum of Rs.6,01,484/- (Rupees Six Lakh One Thousand Four Hundred Eighty
Four Only) to The Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd under Section 529 of
Companies Act, 1956;
b) In view of para (12) above, whether this Hon'ble Court would be pleased
Areeb
2/3 902-OLR-65-2026.DOC
to dispense with the requirements of Rule 276 of the Companies (Court)
Rules 1959 in respect of newspaper advertisement and permit the Official
Liquidator to send the individual dividend notice to the claimant by Speed
Post A.D. to its last known address and payment to claimant will be made
through NEFT/RTGS to their Bank A/c as per details been provided by the
claimant in the ECS mandate form;
c) In view of para (13) above, whether this Hon'ble Court would be pleased
to dispense the requirements of opening "Separate Dividend Account" under
Rule 290 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and allow the Official
Liquidator to pay the dividend @1.24 paise in a rupee of Rs.6.01.484/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Four Only) from the
funds lying to the credit of Company's account maintained by the Official
Liquidator office;
d) In view of para (14) of this report, whether this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to allow to pay dividend within a period of six months from the date
of passing of this report and thereafter to transfer the unpaid /unclaimed
amount to the Companies Liquidation Account maintained by the Registrar
of Companies under Section 555 of Companies Act.”
2. Ms. Thipasay, points out that the Company in question has two secured
creditors namely (i) Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and (ii) Kalyan Janata
Sahakari Bank Ltd. She submits that in so far as the first secured creditor is
concerned, 100% of the dividend has been paid to the first secured creditor. She
submits that the present Report has been taken out for making payment to the
second secured creditor namely Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. She has
invited my attention in particular to paragraph no. 9, which sets out as follows:
“9. That as no claims was received from any workers, the Official Liquidator
submits that by Order dated 19/10/2006, the Official Liquidator declared
dividend to the Secured Creditor of the Company (In Prov.Liqn), The Thane Janata
Sahakari Bank Ltd, being the 1st Charge holder was paid an amount of
Rs.1,00,26,545/- towards final dividend @ 100 paise in a rupee out of the sale
proceeds and The Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. the 2nd Charge holder, was
paid amount of Rs.9,70,135/- being dividend @2 paise în a rupee out of the sale
proceeds. A table providing detail of claims and dividend paid is mentioned
Areeb
3/3 902-OLR-65-2026.DOC
below,”
Sr. No. Particulars Claims Amount Admitted Dividend Paid Dividend
Received Percentage
1. The Thane Janata 10,196,769 10,026,545 10,026,545 100%
Sahakari Bank Ltd.
2. The Kalyan Janata 61,229,187 48,506,771 970,135 2%
Sahakari Bank Ltd.
3. M/s Dabhokar 760,000 760,000 0 -
72,185,956 59,293,316 10,996,680
3. Having heard Ms. Thipasay and having perused the Report, I find that the
same would have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer
clauses ‘a’ to ‘d’.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
Areeb
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.