9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany Petition No. 108 of 1997 and rejected the appellants prayer to modify orders dated 25-7-1997, 5-9-1997 and 3-10-1997. 2. The facts of the case are that on a petition filed by the respondent under section 433 read with section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, which was registered as the Company Petition No. 108 of 1997, for winding up of the appellant, the learned company judge ordered issuance of notice on 25-7-1997 and restrained it from alienating the assets of the company except in regular course of business. After service of notice, the learned company judge passed order dated 5-9-1997, vide which he modified the ex parte interim order and gave liberty to the appellant to sell the assets and properties of the company with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Petition No. 108 of 1997 as having become infructuous. The second application was registered as Company Application No. 11 of 2001. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned company judge declared that in view of the embargo contained in section 22 of the 1985 Act, no further proceedings can be taken in the winding up petition and disposed of both the applications with the following observations : "A perusal of the above, reveals that in case of a pending proceeding inter alia before the company court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, after initiation of enquiry under section 16, the matter is not to be proceeded with further. In terms of the provisions of section 22, proceedings in this case are adjourned sine die ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 25-7-1997, 5-9-1997 and 3-10-1997, which had been passed before entertaining of reference made under section 15 of the 1985 Act. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Real Value Appliance Ltd. v. Canara Bank [1998] 93 Comp. Cas. 26 1 and Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd. [2000] 101 Comp. Cas. 284 . He further submitted that instead of adjourning the proceedings of the winding-up petition sine die to await determination by the BIFR in respect of pending proceedings, the learned company judge should have simply suspended further proceedings of the main petition as also the interim orders passed earlier. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and argued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the 1985 Act. Therefore, the learned company judge had no option but to stay the proceedings on the winding-up petition and this is precisely what he has done by passing the impugned order and we do not find any valid reason to take a different view. 8. The argument of the learned counsel that instead of adjourning the proceedings of the company petition sine die the learned company judge should have suspended the proceedings of the petition along with interim orders passed in 1997 appears attractive but lacks merit and deserves to be rejected because section 22 of the 1985 Act did not leave any discretion with the company judge except to adjourn the proceedings of the winding up petition to await the final decision of the BIFR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
