Messrs ASHRAF ENGINEERING WORKS Ltd. vs M.A.S. STEEL MILLS Ltd. and 2
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Liquidation Judge of the Lahore High Court concerning the electricity dues liability of the petitioner company as the purchaser of the property of respondent No. 1. The core legal question involves the determination of the actual outstanding electricity bill verified through an inquiry by the Official Liquidator, where a certificate produced by the petitioner showing part payment was found to be bogus by WAPDA, and the verified claim of WAPDA stood at Rs. 9,53,131.97. The Supreme Court held that no error of law or principle regarding the appreciation of material and findings of fact was found in the High Court's order confirming the claim. Consequently, the Court laid down that concurrent findings of fact based on verified reports of the Official Liquidator regarding utility dues in liquidation proceedings will not be interfered with in the absence of legal error, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with findings of fact regarding utility liabilities determined upon inquiry by the Official Liquidator in liquidation proceedings?
- Can a petitioner challenge the confirmation of a utility claim in liquidation without establishing an error of law or misappreciation of material by the High Court?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought; against the order of a learned Liquidation Judge of the Lahore High Court, with regard to the liability of the petitioner Company; the purchaser of the property of another company (respondent No, 1 herein); vis-a-vis, the payment of electricity bill amounting the payment of Rs, 5,00,000 had already been made, therefore, the liability was of lesser amount. An inquiry had been held by the Official Liquidator in this behalf. After the submission of necessary reports the learned Judge in the High Court passed the following order:-- "The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner produced certificate of WAPDA regarding payment of Rs, 5,00,000 but the Official Liquidator had verified from the WAPDA that the certificate was not genuine but was bogus and that the WAPDA asserted its claim to the tune of Rs, 9,53,131.97 which he has verified. I have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce fresh statement of accounts from the WAPDA in order to show that its claim is less. He is not agreeable to this proposal. In these circumstances the claim of the WAPDA amounting to Rs, 9,53,131.97 is confirmed."
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the statement of the Official Liquidator to the effect that WAPDA had not owned the certificate of payment of Rs, 5,00,000 as genuine and had declared it as bogus, should not have been accepted by the High Court. He urged that the direct stand taken by the WAPDA in their written statement filed against the application submitted by the petitioner, did not confirm the position taken by the Official Liquidator.
3. We, after having gone through the said written statement and other documents relied upon by the learned counsel and otherwise brought to our notice, have not been able to find any error of law or any principle with regard to appreciation of the material placed before the High Court regarding the findings of fact which essentially formed the subject-matter of the impugned order. That being so, leave to appeal is refused.
4. Lease refused.
Cited by 1 case
- REHMAN SHAH Versus State 2018 YLRN 233