9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p the aforesaid three Government companies, Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation Ltd., and Bihar State Agro-Industries Development Corporation are dismissed. - COMPANY PETITION NOS. 5, 13 AND 16 OF 1999 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2007 - V.N. SINHA, J. P.K. Shahi, Uma Kant Singh, K.N. Gupta, Satyendra Krishna Prasad, Satyendra Narayan Singh, Ashok Kumar Mishra and Navendu Kumar for the Petitioner. Umesh Pd. Singh, Umeshwar Prasad Singh, Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Harendra Kumar Sinha, Rekha Prasad, Jitendra Prasad Singh, Arun Kumar, Bipin Bihari Singh, Shyama Kant Singh, Dharnidhar Mishra, Ajay Kumar Mishra, Vikas Mohan and Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. These winding up petitions have been taken up for consideration in the light of the request of the hon ble Supreme Court contained in order dated 18-5-2007, passed in I.A. Nos. 8 and 11 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 488 of 2002. 2. M/s. Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Bihar, Patna, M/s. Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation Ltd., Bihar, Patna and M/s. Bihar State Agro-Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd., by filing objection petitions, have opposed the prayer to wind up the aforesaid three Government companies as according to them the companies have assets not only in the existing States of Bihar and Jharkhand but also at New Delhi, the list whereof indicating valuation of the assets amounting to Rs. 5,305 lakhs and Rs. 4,523.75 lakhs has been placed on record as indicated in annexure 2 to I.A. No. 5618 of 2006 filed in Company Petition No. 5 of 1999. With reference to letter dated 18-9-2006, and 9-11-2006, issued by the in charge sales manager of Ambapali Bihar Emporium, a unit of M/s. Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd., located at New Delhi, as contained in annexures 3 and 3/1 of I.A. No. 5618 of 2006 it is submitted that the said sales emporium is earning profit as also meeting the part of the salaries of other employees and with reference to the averments made in the objection petitions including I.A. No. 5618 of 2006, it is submitted that M/s. Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd., is viable and ought not to be wound up. 5. In this connection it is further submitted that during the pendency of these petitions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid three companies by virtue of the provisions contained in the Reorganisation Act have become inter-State corporations and if the State Government is of the view that the corporations be dissolved the State Government may frame a scheme for dissolution and forward the scheme to the Central Government for its approval and until such scheme is framed and placed for consideration before the Central Government, the present winding up petition should be dismissed. 7. In reply, the learned Advocate General, with reference to section 65 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act submitted that as the companies in question were functioning on the appointed day, those companies shall continue to function even after the appointed date and the successor State of Bihar has every right to apply for winding up, as according to him the present corporations are governed by section 65 and not by section 66 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act since the present corporations are Government com-panies under section 617 of the Companies Act and not statutory compa-nies under any statute and according to him law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Bihar State Housing Board ( supra ) s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to be assigned to section 2 would render section 5 nugatory. With reference to section 5 of the Inter-State Corporations Act, it was submitted that the Central Government is empowered to amend the Schedule. If the Central Government issued a notification amending the Schedule with a view to bring within the fold of the Inter-State Corporations Act any body corporate functioning in two or more States by virtue of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, it may do so and it is only when such notification is issued that such body corporate would be covered under section 2 and not otherwise. It is further submitted that it is not in dispute that no notification has been issued in section 5, after the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of section 2 read with section 5, by no stretch of imagination, the above referred three companies would be held to be inter-State corporations. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of section 46 and sub-section (1) of section 65 and section 66 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, I am of the view that any Government company, be it a company constituted under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companies have become inter-State corporations by virtue of sub-section (4) of section 46 and sub-section (1) of section 65 read with Schedule 9 to the Reorganisation Act, which is a Central Act and beyond the purview of section 5 of the Inter-State Corporations Act and was not required to be included in the Schedule to the Inter-State Corporations Act, 1957. In this connection, I would refer to clause (3) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the bill to amend the Inter-State Corporations Act, 1957, as it is now well-settled that though the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying legislative bills cannot be used to determine the true meaning and effect of the substantive provisions of a statute, it is permissible to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying a bill for the purpose of understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute and the evil which the statute sought to remedy. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Narain Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain AIR 1985 SC 4, paragraph 12. Clause ( 3 ) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Inter-Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
