9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT), in the factual matrix and that there were no dues remaining to be settled, i find that this is a fit case for recall of the winding up order dated 26/06/2009 and to permit the withdrawal of the petition. - Company Petition No. 19/2006 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2018 - MRS. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. Appearing Parties : V. Rodrigues, A.F. Diniz, Ms. Amira Razaq, S.P. Munj and S.N. Joshi, Advs. ORDER 1. Heard Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Advocate for the Company under winding up whose contention was that an application for recall of the winding up order was maintainable and in that context relied in Omprakash J. Mehra v. Official Liquidator of Surlex Diagnostic Ltd. 116 SCL 382 (Bom.). He adverted to the said judgment and contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Meghal Homes (P.) Ltd. v. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti [2007] 78 SCL 482 (SC) in the matter of revival of a company under winding up. Om Prakash J. Mehra (supra) did not deal with the revival of the company. The only concern of the Official Liquidator was that there was sufficient material before the Court to show the condition of the company under winding up and that it was not a ruse to escape the consequences of the winding up order. She placed further reliance in Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. v. Thapar Agro Mills Ltd. 120 SCL 46 (Delhi), Bengal Immunity Ltd. (In Liquidation), In re [2014] 124 SCL 246 (Cal.) and Goan Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Gautam Ramanbhai Patel [2015] 56 taxmann.com 115 (Bom.) while ultimately concluding her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not seriously in dispute that no such order was drawn by the Registrar. It was otherwise submitted and to which there was no singular dispute particularly at the instance of the learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator that despite the publication of the notice in the local dailies, there were no other creditors forthcoming laying a claim against the company under winding up, EDC and the State Bank of India being the only two creditors since the time of publication somewhere in 2011. Therefore to all effects and purposes, the only creditors of the company under winding up apart from the petitioner were EDC and the State Bank of India whose dues had been fully and finally settled by the respondent and affidavits filed to that effect. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited (SCML). It had run into difficulties and the creditors of the company made an application under Section 433 of the Companies Act for winding up the company and by an order dated 25/07/1984 the said company SCML was ordered to be wound up by the Company Court and the Official Liquidator took charge of its affairs. Nothing significant happened for a decade and on a report of the Official Liquidator, the Company Court passed an order dated 1/09/1994 directing the Official Liquidator to issue a public notice inviting applications for the revival of the textile mills and absorption of the workmen and to purchase the assets of the company. At that stage, one Rangnath Somani, a contributory, filed Company Application No.339 of 1994 seekin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt also found that even on the showing of Rangnath Somani, the value of the land belonging to SCML was approximately ₹ 200 crores if unencumbered and that itself was a very conservative valuation. The Court was of the view that the intention behind presentation of the Scheme appeared to be to acquire the huge lands and other real estate belonging to SCML at a throwaway price ostensibly in the guise of reviving the mills but with no real intention of reviving it. This judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts where the issue of the scheme of the workers union and three parties apart from a contributory were at large before the Company Court which had ordered the winding up of the company unlike the present case where even after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ached the Court with unclean hands by hiding various facts and making false statements, that the matter of listing of the Company Petition skipped the notice of the advocates of the applicant and the matter was taken up for admission and order for admission and advertisement of the petition came to be filed. This judgment is clearly distinguishable and it is not like the case under consideration where the petitioner is seeking the withdrawal of the Company Petition as not only its dues but also of the secured creditors have been duly satisfied by the company under winding up and the company under winding up seeking the recall of the order of winding up as it has no outstanding dues. Hence, the respectful departure. 11. Section 391 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
