Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2018 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (7) TMI 1858 - HC - Companies Law


Issues Involved:
- Recall of winding up order
- Adjourning winding-up petition due to reference to BIFR
- Lack of appearance of company petition in the list
- Allegations of propping up a friendly creditor
- Fresh advertisement before hearing the matter
- Discretion of company judge in winding up

Recall of Winding Up Order:
The appeal challenged the recall of an order winding up a company. The appellant, a creditor, initiated winding-up proceedings against the company, which were admitted in August 2015. However, due to a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in 2015, the winding-up petition was adjourned and subsequently remained adjourned sine die under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. After the repeal of the Act, the petitioning-creditor revived the winding-up petition when the company failed to discharge its debt, leading to the order for winding up.

Allegations and Fresh Advertisement:
The State Bank, a secured creditor, contended that the company petition being adjourned sine die deprived other creditors of their say, and there should have been a notice or advertisement before hearing the matter again. They alleged that a friendly creditor was propped up to ensure the winding-up of the company. The company Court acknowledged the need for a fresh advertisement at the post-advertisement stage to allow other creditors to have a say before winding up the company. The company judge was perceived as not at fault for this decision, as creditors should have a chance to demonstrate why the company should not be wound up.

Discretion of Company Judge:
The judgment highlighted the discretion of the company judge in deciding whether to wind up a company, even if it is proven to be indebted to the petitioning-creditor. The order impugned by the company Court was not questioned on principle, but the delay in issuing fresh directions for advertisements led to the appellant filing the present appeal. The judgment directed the petitioning-creditor to publish advertisements in the same newspapers as before, with the company petition appearing before the company Court on the first available working day two weeks after publication, ensuring simultaneous publication in multiple newspapers.

Conclusion:
The judgment concluded that the order did not warrant interference, but due to the missed deadline for fresh advertisements, directions were issued for publication. The department was directed to ensure the company petition appears on the returnable date. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of proper procedures and creditor involvement in winding-up proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates