Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2008 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 616 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHWinding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up - Held that:- Admittedly, respondent company stopped its business for various reasons and there is not even a whisper in the counter that it is ongoing company. In such a situation, there cannot be a take over of management of business of respondent company nor it is shown that management is taken over by ARCIL as provided under section 15(1) of SARFAESI Act. The difference between the SFC Act and SARFAESI Act is section 13(4)(a ) and ( b) and section 15(1) of SARFAESI Act. Such provisions are absent in SFC Act. It is always presumed that Parliament was aware of the provisions of SFC Act and other cognate laws when sections 13(4) and 15(1) and (3) were enacted in SARFAESI Act. The difference, therefore, is very glaring and the decisions under SFC Act cannot furnish any guidance for interpreting provisions of SARFAESI Act. In the result, for the above reasons, the company petition is admitted. This Court directs that the petition shall be advertised in ‘New Indian Express’ published from Hyderabad, and ‘Eenadu’ telugu daily, Hyderabad Edition, having circulation in ‘Nalgonda’ in the manner provided by rule 24 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The advertisement shall be made within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
|