Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2009 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (12) TMI 511 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAWhether the Company Court enjoys jurisdiction to issue supervisory direction to a securitisation company/secured creditor in connection with a company in liquidation or under winding up in the face of section 13 of the SARFAESI Act or securitisation company opting to stand outside the winding up is absolutely free to utilise the sale proceeds of assets of the company in liquidation? Whether the learned Company Judge committed a factual error by observing that the HSIIDC has hypothecation in respect of plant and machinery? Held that:- We are in entire agreement with the view taken by the learned Company Judge because section 35 of the SARFAESI Act provide for overriding effect of its provisions with a non obstante clause of anything inconsistent with the provisions of that Act. It is only the inconsistency which would bar the application of other laws and not otherwise. There is no inconsistency in issues of supervisory directions in order to achieve the avowed object of section 529A of the Act as echoed by unnumbered five provisos of section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act because there is no provision in the SARFAESI Act giving any conflict with the claim of the workers due as contemplated by section 529A of the Act. Thus question (A) is answered against both the appellants and their appeals are liable to be dismissed. We have examined the record and have also put it to the learned counsel for the HSIIDC as to whether there was any hypothecation of plant and machinery with it. The record does not show any such hypothecation nor Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel for the HSIIDC has been able to support the aforesaid averments. Therefore, there is factual error and to that extent the impugned order deserves to be modified. It is, thus, clear that the HSIIDC would be simply a secured creditor with regard to the raw material and, in fact, an unsecured creditor qua plant and machinery. It cannot claim any right of association with the process of sale or participation at par with the Securitisation Company. Appeal dismissed.
|