9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposal of reference made by them to the BIFR. This Court vide order dated 8-2-2005 observed as under: "3. The applicant has produced a copy of the proceedings dated 5-7-2004 of the BIFR in respect of the respondent-Company. It is quite evident that the matter is pending adjudication before the BIFR in the terms of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the proceedings before the court needs to be suspended. The Application No. 77/2005 is allowed and the proceedings in Company Petition No. 49/2001 shall stand suspended until final disposal of the reference or other orders of the BIFR." 3. Subsequently this Court came to know that there are other company petitions filed for winding up the respondent-Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court vide order dated 14-12-2007, dismissed the company petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file application for revival of the petition, in the event of the company being revived and come out by BIFR. Now with this application, petitioners have produced Annexure - AA, the order passed by the BIFR stating that the reference made to the BIFR is abated under section 15(1) of SIC Act. In view of this development, the application is allowed. The order of this Court dated 14-12-2007 is hereby recalled and the company petition for winding up is restored." 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire petition papers. 6. It is seen from the record that the respondent-Company floated a tender for supply of a Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dues on or before the end of November 1999. Further it is seen that the respondent-company in para 13 of their statement of objections stated as under: "The averment that the company vide its letter dated 24-8-1999 promised to meet outstanding dues by end November 1999 and that the respondent however failed and neglected to clear its dues to the petitioner may be true." 10. From the above admission of the respondent-company it is clear that they failed to pay the outstanding dues to the petitioner. Despite the statutory notice the respondent-company failed to pay the outstanding dues. Therefore, the respondent-company is deemed to have failed to pay the debt payable to the petitioner-company. 11. This Court as per order dated 31-7-2003 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
