9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Company petition seeking winding-up under section 433(e) of the Companies Act due to inability to pay admitted debt. Consolidation of multiple company petitions against the respondent-company. Shelter of section 22 of SICA taken by the respondent. Participation of creditors in the inquiry proceedings before BIFR under section 15 of SICA. Court's authority to safeguard creditors' interests under the Companies Act and SICA. Liberty granted to petitioners in case of dismissal of reference by BIFR. Disposal of petitions in light of section 22 of SICA. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a company petition filed under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, seeking winding-up of the respondent-company due to its inability to pay an admitted debt. The court noted that several other connected company petitions were filed by creditors against the same respondent-company on similar grounds. All these petitions were consolidated for disposal as they shared a common question of the company's inability to pay debts as per section 433(e) of the Act. The respondent-company sought shelter under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (SICA), citing a pending reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The court acknowledged the pending reference but emphasized that allowing creditors to participate in the BIFR inquiry would not be illegal or against SICA provisions. It affirmed that creditors have the right to safeguard their debts and participate in such proceedings. Regarding the court's authority, it was established that the court could safeguard creditors' interests under both the Companies Act and SICA. The court rejected the argument that the absence of a specific provision in SICA would bar creditors from participating in the inquiry. It maintained that the court could pass appropriate directions to protect creditors' interests, especially in cases involving winding-up proceedings. The judgment also addressed the scenario where the BIFR reference might be dismissed under SICA. The court preserved the petitioners' right to file or renew winding-up petitions against the respondent-company based on the same cause of action. It granted liberty to petitioners to pursue their claims under section 433 of the Companies Act if the BIFR reference was rejected in the future. In light of section 22 of SICA, which prohibits the court from proceeding with the winding-up petition, the court emphasized that it could still give directions or observations for the BIFR to consider during the inquiry proceedings. It allowed petitioners to participate in the BIFR inquiry to support their debts and directed the BIFR to expedite the disposal of the reference case in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the judgment disposed of the petitions by granting liberty to the petitioners to participate in the BIFR inquiry proceedings and directed the BIFR to expedite the disposal of the reference case. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of the creditors with the legal provisions under the Companies Act and SICA, despite the restrictions imposed by section 22 of SICA on the court's jurisdiction in winding-up matters.
|
