9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereby the appellant's application, CO.APPL.627/2022 in CO.PET.318/2003, was rejected. The appellant had moved the said application, inter alia, praying that the winding up proceedings relating to Shree Shyam Cotspin Ltd. (hereftaer 'the company') be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal for further proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereafter 'IBC'). The said application was resisted by respondent no.4, which is an asset reconstruction company. 2. It is claimed that respondent no.3 (Allahabad Bank) had assigned its secured debt as well as security interest relating to the company to respondent no.4. 3. Both the parties rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued to Allahabad Bank to issue sale proclamation and invite bids from the public. However, since SDM, Sonepat had placed locks on the Company's property, Allahabad Bank was unable to proceed with the sale. Thus, on 14th July, 2005, the Court ordered SDM to remove the said locks and redirected issuance of sale proclamation. 4.4 Pursuant to the above-noted, three bids were received by Allahabad Bank and five were received in the Court, of which the bid of PP Homes and Infrastructure Private Limited [hereinafter, "Auction Purchaser"] was accepted on 29th September, 2005. 4.5 Despite acceptance of the bid, Allahabad Bank Could not hand over physical possession of the Company's assets to Auction Purchaser in view of notification dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence was filed before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter 'BIFR') under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (hereafter 'SICA'). The BIFR had declared that the company was a sick company as way back, as on 11.11.1999. 7. It is apparent that the company could not be revived and therefore, BIFR, by its order dated 13.02.2003, had recommended that the company be wound up under Section 20(1) of the SICA. Pursuant to the said recommendations, proceedings had commenced before the learned Company Court. The Official Liquidator was appointed for liquidation of the company's assets. 8. The Official Liquidator had invited claims and had also taken steps for sale of the assets of the company. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the proceedings may be transferred to NCLT. However, there is no material on record to indicate that the release of land under acquisition is imminent. In any view of the matter, even if the land is de-notified, the same would be required to be sold to liquidate the debts of the company. 14. The limited question to be addressed by this Court is whether the learned Company Court had erred in proceeding on the basis that irreversible steps have been taken. In our opinion, the said question is required to be answered in the negative. It is clear from the record that several steps have been taken for winding up of the company; assets claims have been invited from creditors; parts of the company's assets have been sold; all movable assets ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
