9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Petition seeking winding up of respondent-company under sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Maintainability of the winding-up petition due to the pendency of the original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, ICICI Bank Ltd., filed a company petition seeking winding up of the respondent-company for defaulting on a loan repayment of Rs. 4,20,97,018. The loan was granted for purchasing equipment, with the managing director of the respondent-company providing a personal guarantee. Despite various demands and notices, the respondent failed to repay the outstanding amount, leading to the petition for winding up. 2. The respondent argued that the winding-up petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had already initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi. Citing the judgment in Bank of Nova Scotia v. RPG Transmission Ltd., the respondent contended that two parallel proceedings for the same cause of action were impermissible. The respondent emphasized that the Debt Recovery Act was a special statute, and the petitioner's status as a secured creditor excluded it from the winding-up process. 3. In response, the petitioner asserted that the present application was an abuse of process and aimed at delaying proceedings. They argued that winding up proceedings differed from recovery suits and were distinct in nature. Referring to legal precedents, the petitioner contended that the judgment in Bank of Nova Scotia did not apply to the current case, and the petition was indeed maintainable. 4. The court deferred a decision on the maintainability issue, noting that an appeal against the relevant judgment was pending before the Division Bench. The court directed the respondent to file a reply to the winding-up petition to prevent stagnation of proceedings. The court highlighted the importance of addressing the admission of debt by the respondent in the reply and suggested that the question of maintainability could be raised as a preliminary objection in the reply itself. 5. The court emphasized the need for procedural progress and set deadlines for filing the reply and rejoinder. The case was listed for further proceedings on a specified date to ensure timely resolution. The court's approach aimed to maintain procedural momentum while allowing for the consideration of the maintainability issue in due course based on the evolving circumstances and legal developments. By adopting a pragmatic and procedural approach, the court sought to balance the interests of both parties and ensure the efficient adjudication of the winding-up petition while addressing the complexities arising from the parallel proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi.
|
