Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTStay of the winding up order – BIFR - Bonafide steps has been taken by the contributory to revive the Company – Held that:- At the meeting held on 25.2.2003 by BIFR it was specifically recorded that the Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, GOI was the promoter of the Company and had failed to implement the scheme formulated by it, though sanctioned by BIFR. From the order dated 25.2.2003 it will appear that ample opportunity was given to the Company and its promoters to submit a revival scheme and even after the formation of the prima facie opinion on 13.9.2002 a show-cause was issued and objections called to be heard on 25.2.2003. When no objection was filed or scheme submitted by the promoters BIFR recommended winding up. The last nail in the coffin so to say was the submission of the representative of the promoters. In favour of respondent Suppression of facts – Increase in price of the land since 1996 - Termination of the sale contract which has been accepted by HSCL - Land was belong to company under liquidation - After taking leave from BIFR said property was put up for sale by tender process to generate funds for implementation of a scheme - HSCL was the highest bidder and paid not only the earnest money but also sums aggregating to Rs.115.25 lacs out of the bid price of Rs.315.73 lacs till 7.1.1998 - By order dated 1.3.2006 HSCL was granted leave to deposit the balance consideration within 30 days from 1.3.2006 – Held that:- Price cannot be a factor as the Company accepted the offer of HSCL in 1996 and is seeking a revision in price in 2006, although there is no document disclosed evidencing price revision. The only document disclosed is with regard to revised payment schedule. In favour of respondent Appeal by Employees’ Union of the Company - From the order dated 25.2.2003 recommending winding up an appeal was filed by the Union - The said appeal was dismissed on 13.5.2005 - The restoration application was filed after the order dated 6.7.2005 - After the filing of appeal and before the filing of the restoration application the members of the applicant union had applied for VSS or VRS – On dated 3.3.2008 when the order was passed by the Appellate Authority there was no member of the Union – Held that:- It has been admitted by the applicant Union that on revival the workers will need to be reinstated and the workers will return the sums received. Once an employee has received VSS or VRS Voluntarily he can have no jural relation with the Company. The VSS or VRS taken is not conditional, therefore decides against respondent
|