9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epayment of the amount of Rs. 42,62,547 with interest as justification for the relief claimed in the petition. This Court had issued a notice on 1-8-2008, to show cause as to why the petition should not be admitted and set the case for hearing on 18-9-2008. At the hearing on 18-9-2008, the company was represented through counsel and stated that the company was before the BIFR and on a direction by the Court that an appropriate application could be filed along with details, the company filed C.A. No. 875 of 2008 under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, seeking stay of the proceedings on the ground that a reference under section 15(1) of the SICA was being considered in Case No. 229 of 2004 and by o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any. If such a reference had already been pending by the time when the SARFAESI Act had been introduced, such reference shall abate if the securitisation company having control of not less than three-fourths value of the amount has taken measures to recover the secured debt under section 13(4) of the Act. Admittedly such steps have been taken under section 13(4) and, therefore, I have no difficulty in finding that the application under section 22 is not maintainable. 3. The petitioner immediately filed C.A. No. 95 of 2009 under Order 1, rule 10 for impleadment of M/s. Dhir & Dhir Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Co. Ltd. When the application for impleadment had been moved, this Court has issued an order on 6-2-2009, directing that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the order. 5. Before taking up the rival contentions, the application for impleadment of the reconstruction company is ordered and the reconstruction company shall be taken as arrayed as the second respondent. The application for stay of the proceedings sought by the respondent-company is dismissed as abated having regard to the fact that action is purported to have been taken under section 13(2) and (4) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent-company is given time to file its objection for winding up and the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of winding up shall be issued forthwith is rejected. 6. This order shall, therefore, consider the order passed in C.A. No. 95 of 2009 read with C.A. No. 151 of 2009 seeking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it shall be construed, with reference to section 441(2) of the Companies Act, that the winding up of the company by the Tribunal (Court) shall be deemed to commence at the time of presentation of the petition for winding up. In my view, if the order of winding up is made by virtue of section 441(2), it would relate back to the time of presentation of the petition. The order of winding up has not yet been made and I have directed counter of the company to be filed after dismissal of its application under section 22 of the SICA. The matter will be taken for consideration in future. As of now, it will be premature to pass any orders under section 446. 8. As regards the direction that I have already made against alienation of assets, it shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
