9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile to notice that the appellant-Reconstruction Company is already kept outside the winding up and is required to give information to the Official Liquidator with regard to the proposal of sale etc. The sale notice to the public has to contain clause that winding up proceedings are pending before the Company Court. These directions are merely supervisory in character and do not put such fetters so as to conclude that the Appellant Reconstruction Company cannot conduct its function properly. The appeal does not warrant admission and the same is dismissed. - CO. APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2009 CMA NO. 40 OF 2009 IN CO. PETITION NO. 96 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2009 - M.M. KUMAR AND AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ. Ashok Aggarwal and Ms. Radhika ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s abated. 2. The Appellant Reconstruction Company moved an application being CA No. 151 of 2009 for modification of order dated 6-2-2009 passed by the learned Company Judge directing that assets of the company were not to be sold by any party without leave of the Court and had issued notice. The learned Company Judge adopted the reasoning given by him in his decision dated 20-3-2009 rendered in the case of PEGASUS Asset Reconstructions Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Haryana Concast Ltd. in CA Nos. 704 and 705 of 2008 in CP No. 133 of 2003 along with other Company Applications. In that judgment, the learned Company Judge made an attempt to harmonize the SARFAESI Act and the Companies Act. For the purpose of the instant case, the learned Company Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as partially accepted by holding as under : "8. As regards the direction that I have already made against alienation of assets, it shall stand modified to permit reconstruction company to take further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. However, by the construction that I have made in the decision referred to above in PEGASUS Asset Reconstructions Company (P.) Ltd., which reasoning I adopt in this case as well, that the petitioner would be permitted to move this Court for appropriate directions if the petition for winding up is considered favourably. The ultimate directions shall follow on what is held on the outcome of petition for winding up. In the meanwhile, no appropriation or disbursal of the sale proceedings shall be undertaken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. A perusal of the directions issued in para 8 of the order, extracted above, shows that it is left open to the Appellant Reconstruction Company to move the Company Court for appropriate directions if the petition for winding up is considered favourably. The winding up petition is still pending. The situation is fluid in the sense that at this stage it cannot be concluded as to whether there would be an order of winding up or not. If there is an order of winding up then the labour dues as contemplated by section 529A of the Companies Act would require to be paid by the Appellant Reconstruction Company as per the requirement of section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
