9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Company indebted to petitioners for financial assistance. 2. Company ceased business activities, assets sold, approached BIFR for revival. 3. Petition pending before Madhya Pradesh High Court, company seeks stay on winding up. 4. Interpretation of the effect of pending petition on winding up proceedings. Analysis: 1. The petitioners claimed that the company owed them a significant sum of money, including principal and overdue interest, as financial assistance in the form of a loan. The company had not disputed this claim, indicating its indebtedness. 2. The company had stopped its business operations since 1987, leading to the sale of its movable and immovable assets by the Court receiver. Despite approaching the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for revival, the company faced challenges in functioning smoothly. 3. The company had a pending petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking a stay on the winding-up proceedings. However, the High Court held that the pendency of a petition in another court should not prevent the Company Court from proceeding with the winding-up process. 4. The High Court referred to a previous judgment by the Apex Court in a similar case, emphasizing that a mere stay order did not prevent the Company Court from exercising jurisdiction to wind up a company. The High Court concluded that, given the company's discontinued operations and the unavailability of assets for business activities, the petition for winding up was justified. In light of the company's ceased operations, the absence of a defense, and the disappearance of the company's substratum, the High Court deemed it appropriate to wind up the company. The Court made the petition absolute in favor of the petitioners, disregarding the pending writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
|
