9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Winding Up Order 2. Permission to Resume Manufacturing Activities 3. Restraint on Official Liquidator from Taking Possession 4. Objections from Creditors and Financial Institutions 5. Viability of Revival Scheme Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Revocation of Winding Up Order: The petitioner sought to revoke the winding-up order passed by the High Court in Company Petition No. 69 of 2002 on 12-11-2003, pursuant to the opinion forwarded by the Registrar, BIFR. The petitioner argued that the company, Jalan Ispat Casting Limited, had faced financial difficulties due to a global recession in the steel industry and high electricity tariffs, leading to its closure. Despite efforts to revive the company, including approaching the BIFR, the company could not arrange the necessary funds, resulting in the BIFR recommending its winding up. The petitioner contended that improved market conditions and confirmed orders indicated a viable opportunity for revival and requested the court to revoke the winding-up order under section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Permission to Resume Manufacturing Activities: The petitioner requested permission to resume manufacturing activities and manganese mining operations, arguing that the company had secured a mining lease and that the high electricity tariffs had been neutralized, making the unit profitable. The petitioner proposed a revival scheme, including a one-time settlement with secured creditors and the infusion of funds from Adhunik Cement Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner emphasized the improved market conditions for the steel industry and the willingness of workers to support the revival efforts. 3. Restraint on Official Liquidator from Taking Possession: The petitioner sought to restrain the Official Liquidator from taking possession of the company's assets, arguing that the company had maintained possession and that the revival scheme would benefit all stakeholders, including creditors, shareholders, suppliers, buyers, employees, and the national economy. The petitioner highlighted the support of Bank of Baroda for the one-time settlement proposal and the workers' willingness to cooperate with the management. 4. Objections from Creditors and Financial Institutions: Several respondents, including IFCI, G.E.B., and MPSEB, opposed the petitioner's application. IFCI argued that the one-time settlement proposal was based on the outstanding principal amount and did not include interest, leading to discrimination among lenders. G.E.B. and MPSEB highlighted the company's significant outstanding dues and argued that the revival scheme was illusory without addressing these liabilities. They emphasized that the company could not restart operations without settling the electricity dues and obtaining a new connection. 5. Viability of Revival Scheme: The court examined the viability of the revival scheme proposed by the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's claims of improved market conditions and confirmed orders, the court found that the company's conduct and past failures did not inspire confidence in its ability to discharge all liabilities and restart operations. The court noted that the company's liabilities far exceeded its means, and previous attempts at revival had failed. The court concluded that the present application was primarily aimed at preventing the Official Liquidator from taking possession of the company's assets and that there was no reasonable prospect of the company being revived. Conclusion: The court rejected the petitioner's application for revocation of the winding-up order and permission to resume manufacturing activities. The court vacated the stay restraining the Official Liquidator from taking possession and emphasized that the proposed revival scheme did not inspire confidence in the company's ability to meet its liabilities and restart operations. The court concluded that the company's huge debts and past failures indicated that there was no reasonable prospect of revival.
|
