9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal challenging Companies Act orders Detailed Analysis: The case involves an appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 against orders dated 25-6-2004 and 9-7-2004 by the Company Judge in Misc. Case Nos. 19 of 2004 and 34 of 2004 respectively in Company Petition No. 29 of 2003. The company in question, M/s. S.N. Corporation Limited, faced mismanagement leading to losses, and after being in BIFR for 13 years, was ordered to be wound up. Various attempts were made to revive the company, including offers from different parties to purchase its assets. The appellant-company, M/s. Imperial Fastners Pvt. Ltd., also showed interest but did not submit a proposal for revival before the winding-up order. The Asset Disposal Committee recommended offers from SCAW Industries Pvt. Ltd. (SIPL) and M/s. Sundaram Fastners Limited (SFL) for the assets of the company. The Company Judge accepted the recommendations in favor of SIPL and SFL, leading to a modification request by the appellant-company, which was subsequently rejected. The appellant argued that the assets should be sold to a party willing to revive and run the company, but the Asset Disposal Committee's recommendation to shift assets outside the State was not conducive to revival. The appellant then offered Rs. 6.50 crores for the entire assets of the company, including the land. The High Court considered the submissions and concluded that the recommendations in favor of SIPL and SFL were in the best interest of the company. The Court emphasized that the primary consideration was to serve the company's interest, especially in repaying loans taken. The Court found the offer by the appellant to be lower than those of SIPL and SFL. The Court highlighted that the remaining land could be utilized for setting up another industry, serving the company's interest. Therefore, the Court upheld the Company Judge's orders as beneficial for the company, dismissing the appeal. In summary, the High Court upheld the Company Judge's orders favoring SIPL and SFL as serving the best interest of the company, emphasizing the importance of repaying loans and utilizing assets for the company's benefit. The Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant-company, emphasizing the primary consideration of serving the company's interest in such circumstances.
|
