9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3361/DC/3011 dated 25-1-2011. The relevant facts are as under : 2. The respondent No. 1 company-Pharmaceuticals Products of India Limited is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It had taken loan from the Tata Finance Limited. Ultimately, there was an award passed in favour of the company and against respondent No. 1. There were other secured and unsecured creditors of the company. According to the present Petitioners, Tata Finance Limited which was the Creditor had provided interest free loan in favour of Tata Motors Limited and Tata Motors Limited have transferred their interest in favour of the present Petitioners. The respondent No. 1 was unable to pay its debts. Therefore, an Application was moved by the respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court also set aside the order of this Court approving the merger of the two companies. As a result of the order of the Supreme Court, proceedings started before the BIFR. However, it is pertinent to note that neither the respondent No. 1 nor respondent No. 2 took any steps under the Companies Act for implementing the order of the Supreme Court which contemplated de-merger and separate existence of the two companies. In this situation, the Petitioner who is the creditor filed an Application before the B.I.F.R. for rejection of the reference. Case of the petitioner was that the Reference has been filed in the year 1998 by the respondent No. 1-Company. It was pointed out that as a consequence of the order of the Supreme Court, order of the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Perusal of paragraph 3 shows that the B.I.F.R. while rejecting the application has neither considered the judgment of the Supreme Court of India nor considered the averments made in the Application. The B.I.F.R. has also not taken into consideration what is stated in the Balance Sheet by the respondent No. 2. It was admittedly pointed out to the B.I.F.R. that the stand of the respondent No. 2 in its Balance sheet was that the order of the Supreme Court is not to be implemented and status quo ante is to be maintained about that order. We find that in the Balance Sheet the respondent No. 2 has stated thus in relation to the merger and de-merger: "The Pharmaceutical Products of India Limited (PPIL) was merged with the company pursuant to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. 2 was under a duty to take steps under the Companies Act to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India. What is the effect in law of the respondent No. 2 refusing to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court should have been considered. The B.I.F.R. Should have considered whether in the absence of the steps being taken by respondent No. 2 to revive the respondent No. l in law, it could proceed further with the Reference that was registered at the instance of the respondent No. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that what has been considered by the B.I.F.R. is a scheme submitted by the implementing agency. In our opinion, the submission has no substance because the scheme has been submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
