9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l may be summed up thus : (a)One SST Media (P.) Ltd., running a news channel by the name of Kolkata TV, was directed to be wound up by the learned company court on 21-5-2009, in C.P. No. 39 of 2009 at the instance of one of the creditors thereof. Several other winding up petitions filed by the creditors were pending and the liability of the company, as it appears from the break-up given in the application, was in the region of Rs. 74 crores. (b)The Official Liquidator, consequent to the order of winding up, when went to take possession, was prevented from taking possession of the assets of the company-in-liquidation and thereafter, one Shri Dayal Saha and another Shri Pradip Bandyopadhyay claiming to have been authorised by the employees of the company-in-liquidation moved C.A. No. 651 of 2009 under section 466 of the Companies Act thereby praying for the following relief : "(i)All the orders of winding up passed by this Hon'ble Court in connection with SST Media (P.) Ltd., from time to time be stayed until further order of this Hon'ble Court; (ii)R.P. Techvision (India) (P.) Ltd., of 12, Government Place (East), 4th Floor, Kolkata-700 069 be given liberty to file scheme of arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt passed an order staying all further proceedings of the winding up of the company and appointing two learned advocates of this court for the purpose of presiding over a meeting between the promoters/financiers on the one hand and the creditors on the other. The company was allowed to continue its business and a separate account as regards income and expenditure was directed to be maintained. The matter was made returnable on 21-9-2009. However, it appears that the said meeting could not give any fruitful result and there was none in the said meeting who was prepared to make any commitment to invest for revival or for payment of the dues of the creditors as would appear from the order dated 22-9-2009. The stay already granted was, however, directed to continue on condition that a sum of Rs. 2 crores should be deposited with the official liquidator by 21-10-2009, at the instance of the R.P. Techvision (India) (P.) Ltd., the present appellant. (f)On 26-10-2009, an affidavit was affirmed by one Shri Rana Bandyopadhyay as principal officer of R.P. Techvision (India) (P.) Ltd., the present appellant, stating that it had deposited a sum of Rs. 2 crores with the official liquidator on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y; (iv)Charges, if any, of the secured creditors be shifted upon the sale of the assets as above to the sale proceeds of the assets but the transfer to the purchaser will be free from all encumbrances; (v)Until valuation of assets, advertisements and actual sale of the assets by the official liquidator the company be run as at present on the conditions imposed by the court, i.e., payment of hire purchase, instalments, rent/occupation charges, license fees, auditors fees, salaries and wages and all outgoing as at present; (vi)Stay of the winding up order and/or all proceedings in winding up till the disposal of this application or such time as to this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper; (vii)In the event of the sale of the assets as mentioned above being held in favour of the present financiers, viz., R.P. Techvision (India) (P.) Ltd., or their nominee, credit be given to them for all payments made and/or funds provided for payment of salaries, license fees, rents/occupation charges, deposit, audit fees, etc., by them as costs charges and expenses of liquidation towards the sale proceeds or repayment out of the sale proceeds to them on a preferential basis; ( viii)The sale o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations. This Bench did not interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge directing the official liquidator to take immediate possession and make necessary investigations pursuant to the order of winding up. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the course of hearing of the said appeal the present appellant tried to intervene but we did not allow the present appellant to intervene because the appellant did not prefer any appeal. 5. Against our order dated 16-2-2010- Pradip Bandyopadhyay's case (supra), Shri Pradip Bandopadhyay who preferred the previous appeal moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing a special leave application but ultimately the same was withdrawn. 6. Subsequently, the present appellant has preferred this appeal with an application for leave to prefer an appeal as according to the appellant it will be prejudicially affected by the order passed by the learned Single Judge along with an application for condonation of delay of 18 days in preferring this appeal. 7. We condoned the delay in filing the appeal and granted leave to prefer the present appeal only to enable the appellant to challenge that part of the order passed by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of the grant of a licence by the court to run the company had revived the sick company with the resources of finance and expertise from the Government, financial institution, banks and also Government concerns and multinational concerns and in such a case, all the objectors were interested parties. The only question that had fallen for determination in that case was whether the discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicants having regard to the special facts of the said case indicating the efforts exerted by them in revival of the company. The court after careful consideration of the pleadings, annexures, supplementary affidavits and counter-affidavits was satisfied that there was paramount public interest including the prospect of employment and increasing production of various types of electrical equipment and products which the company was producing and which appeared to have immense prospect and profitability and taking into consideration the industry, commerce and commercial morality and also the fact that the ex-management with a view to frustrate the achievement of the applicant society was opposing the application and that the objection was not bona fide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
