CL : Where reference was filed before BIFR after passing of winding up order against company, same was nothing but a deliberate attempt to forestall process of winding up
■■■
[2015] 55 taxmann.com 207 (Calcutta)
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Dena Bank
v.
Official Liquidator, H.C.
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE AND SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, JJ.
A.P.O. NO. 450 OF 2014
C.P. NO. 241 OF 2009†
JANUARY 29, 2015
Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with sections 15 and 22, of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be would up - Whether when order of winding up is passed Company Court would expedite process for beneficial winding up, it would have no role to play for revival, however, Company Court could consider any scheme propounded by anyone suggesting revival and in such process Court may stay order of winding up - Held, yes - Company 'K' was ordered to be wound up for non payment of dues of appellant - Management of company tried to stall process of winding up and filed an application for stay of winding up on ground that reference was pending before BIFR - Single Judge allowed that application - Whether since reference to BIFR was filed after winding up order had already been passed, entire conduct of management was nothing but a deliberate attempt to forestall process of winding up and, therefore, impugned order was to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 19,21,23 & 24]
■■■
[2015] 55 taxmann.com 207 (Calcutta)
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Dena Bank
v.
Official Liquidator, H.C.
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE AND SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, JJ.
A.P.O. NO. 450 OF 2014
C.P. NO. 241 OF 2009†
JANUARY 29, 2015
Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with sections 15 and 22, of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be would up - Whether when order of winding up is passed Company Court would expedite process for beneficial winding up, it would have no role to play for revival, however, Company Court could consider any scheme propounded by anyone suggesting revival and in such process Court may stay order of winding up - Held, yes - Company 'K' was ordered to be wound up for non payment of dues of appellant - Management of company tried to stall process of winding up and filed an application for stay of winding up on ground that reference was pending before BIFR - Single Judge allowed that application - Whether since reference to BIFR was filed after winding up order had already been passed, entire conduct of management was nothing but a deliberate attempt to forestall process of winding up and, therefore, impugned order was to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 19,21,23 & 24]
No comments:
Post a Comment