9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e initial promoter of the Company, cannot be said to be a party interested in the revival of the Company as none of the provisions of the Companies Act give any right to such a person to revive a Company, who is not even a shareholder. The Company consists of shareholders and not outsiders. 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), the prayer for recalling the order of winding up at the instance of such guarantor (appellant) has been rightly rejected by the learned Company Judge. Appeal dismissed. - O.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... winding up of the Company, M/s. S. Manikya Plastichem Pvt. Ltd. was passed. Further prayer was made for being impleaded in the Company Petition as a party-respondent and also to condone the delay of 1505 days in filing the said application. 3. The application filed by the appellant was rejected by the learned Company Judge vide order dated 25.04.2013, primarily on the ground that the appellant was not even a shareholder of the Company in liquidation and as such, the application of the appellant was without merit. Aggrieved by the said order, these appeals have been filed. 4. We have heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S. learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Sri Thomas V. Peter, learned Counsel appearing fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No. 1 has no interest left in the matter. 7. Sri K.S. Mahadevan, learned Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator has submitted that the appellant would not be a necessary party in the proceedings, as he is neither a share holder nor a secured creditor and is merely a guarantor of the loan taken by the Company from the State Bank of India. It has been submitted that under law, the appellant would have no right or locus to revive the Company, as he is not even a shareholder of the Company and as such, the entire argument that the purpose of the appellant is to revive the Company would be a futile exercise. It is further submitted that there is no proposal submitted by the appellant for revival of the Company an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal for revival of a company at the instance of the outsider (not being a shareholder) can be entertained by the Company Court. Merely because a certain group had promoted the Company several years back, will not entitle the initial promoters to take interest in the revival of the Company unless the same is permitted by law. The stand of the appellant that he may be permitted to negotiate with the bank for clearing dues of the bank and thereafter be permitted to take over the securities of the Company pledged with the Bank, for allowing the appellant to revive the Company, is not worthy of acceptance. Once the Company is under liquidation, claim over the properties of the Company would not be of any one particular party or creditor. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al even filed by the appellant before the learned Company Judge or in appeal), we are of the opinion that the prayer for recalling the order of winding up at the instance of such guarantor (appellant) has been rightly rejected by the learned Company Judge. 13. Even otherwise, it is not clear as to why the appellant has woken up from slumber in the year 2013 i.e., after nearly five years of the passing of the winding up order on 18.12.2008 and when directions for sale of the property has already been issued by the learned Company Judge, much prior to the filing of the application. 14. As such, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned in these appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
