9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lders of 98.76% of the shares and the share holding of the family members of the appellant was reduced to 1.24% only. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that at present the appellant himself has no share holding in the Company. At the instance of respondent No. 1-Mohan Singh, who had filed a winding up petition (being COP No. 56/2008) an order dated 18.12.2008 was passed by the learned Company Judge, directing the Company to be wound up and the Official Liquidator was directed to take possession of the affairs of the Company in question being M/s. S. Manikya Plastichem Private Limited. 2. Nearly five years after such order was passed, in the year 2013, a Company application was filed by the appellant with the prayer fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank may be handed over to the appellant so that the appellant could revive the Company, which would be for the benefit of the creditors as well as the shareholders. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that for such purpose, it would be necessary that the order of winding up dated 18.12.2008 be recalled and thereafter the appellant may be permitted to negotiate with the Bank and other creditors for revival of the Company, as the appellant has the expertise to do so. 6. Sri Thomas V. Peter, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 (Mohan Singh) who filed the Company Petition for winding up has submitted that after passing of the winding up order, the debts of respondent No. 1 have been cleared by the appellant and as su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. She has adopted the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator in submitting that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. From the facts of the present case, it is absolutely clear that the only interest of the appellant is to the extent that he is a guarantor of the loan taken by the Company from the State Bank of India. He has no share holding in the Company and had voluntarily exited from the Company in the year 2006 when he transferred his share holdings in favour of Sri S.N. Ladhani and his family members. 10. On being questioned, learned counsel for the appellant could not place before the Court any provision of the Companies Act under which a proposal for revival of a company at the instance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 Crores, ignoring the claim of the other creditors. This is by way of an example. There can be several other instances where a guarantor or an outsider may try to take over the securities of the Company and say that it is for revival of the Company. For that reason, the law provides that it is the official liquidator which has to take over the assets of the Company and deal with the same in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act. 12. As such, in the absence of the appellant having been able to place before us any provision under which a guarantor can be handed over the assets of the Company for its revival, (for which there is no proposal even filed by the appellant before the learned Company Judge or in appeal), we are of the opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
