SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(AP) 625

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, represented by its Authorised Officer B. Venkata Subbaiah
Versus
M/s. South Asian Agro Industries Ltd., represented by its Managing Director
C.P. No. 264 of 2013
Decided on : 17-06-2014

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Niranjan Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P.S. Rajasekhar, Advocate.

Headnote:

Companies Act, 1956 - Section 394 - Sections 433 - Section 433(1)(e) - Section 434 - Section 434(1)(a) - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - Section 13(2) - Section 13(4) - Section 17(1) - Section 433 and 434 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 – Repayment of the loan installments – Amalgamation - Winding up the respondent for non-payment of the alleged debt - Respondent continued its defaults in repayment of the loan installments - Petitioner has caused notice - Calling upon the respondent to pay the amount - Pending installments and other overdue amounts within seven days of the receipt of the notices – Failed to repay the installments along with interest and other charges as stipulated in clause - Notice also informed the respondent that if it fails to comply with the demand of repayment, it will take the necessary measures to recover the secured debt – Held, The cause for a creditor to file a winding up petition arises due to default of the debtor company, the winding up proceedings are not exclusively in the nature of recovery proceedings - There is no scope for any inconsistency between the provisions of these two enactments - Indeed, no such inconsistency exists - Petitioner is permitted to issue advertisement in the newspapers of Hyderabad edition for filing proof of publication - It is premature for this Court to conclude whether the respondent may be wound up, for, such a decision will be taken only after considering the pleas and objections of the shareholders and other creditors - However, this Court of the firm opinion that the Company Petition is liable to be admitted and winding up process need to be commenced - Petition is allowed.

Judgment :

This Company Petition is filed under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") for winding up the respondent for non-payment of the alleged debt.

The respondent was incorporated under the Act on 26-5-1995. Its registered office is situated at Suryachakra House, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The authorised share capital of the respondent is stated to be Rs.17,50,00,000/- and the paid up share capital is Rs.12,02,05,000/-. The objects of the respondent, as per its Memorandum of Association and to the knowledge of the petitioner, are as under:

“To generate, harness, develop, accumulate, distribute and supply electricity by setting up Biomass combustion based power plants by use of rice husk, paddy straw or woody biomass, agricultural waste and thermal power plants by use of liquid, gaseous or solid fuels for the purpose of light, heat, motive power and for all other purposes for which electric energy can be employed. To carry on and generate power supply either by hydro, thermal, gas, air, diesel oil or through renewal energy such as solar, photo voltaic, wind mill or by non-conventional means and or any other team transit, distribute, supply Central/State Governments, or private companies or electricity Boards to industries and to Central/State Governments, other consumers of electricity including for captive consumption or for any industrial projects promoted by this Company or promoter companies, and generally to develop, gene accumulate power at any other place or places and to transmit, distribute, sell and supply such power.

To construct, establish, operate, manage power stations, boiler houses, steam turbines, switch yards, transformer yards, sub-stations, transmission lines, accumulators, work shops and all such works necessary for generating, accumulating, distributing and supply of electricity. To construct, lay down, establish, fix, erect, equip and maintain power generating machinery equipments and cables, computer and control equipments, transmission lines, accumulators, fittings and apparatus in the capacity of principles, contractors or otherwise.”

M/s. Indiabulls Infrastructure Credit Limited (IICL) sanctioned loan facility of Rs.35 crores to the respondent for taking over the existing loans and augmenting working capital requirement. The respondent evidently approached M/s. Indiabulls Financial Services Limited (IFSL) for sanction of loan of Rs.50 crores to facilitate repayment of the loan received from IICL and also for augmenting its working capital. IFSL has issued sanction letter dated 28-3-2012 for the loan of Rs.50 crores to the respondent. On 29-3-2012, the Board of Directors of the respondent passed resolution for availing the loan facility of Rs.50 crores from IFSL. On 30-3-2012, loan agreement was entered into between IFSL on the one side, the respondent as the borrower and M/s. Bhuvana Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (BECPL) as co-borrower, on the other. Several documents including pledge/charge agreement by M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited and also an undertaking for credit of benefits, declaration and acknowledgement concerning deposit of title deeds, deed of hypothecation on the power project at Khajuri village, Baloda Bazar, Raipur District, Chattisgarh, demand promissory note and letter of continuity for demand promissory note executed by the respondent and the co-borrower and deeds of guarantees executed by the Directors of the respondent have been executed by and on behalf of the respondent. In pursuance of the request letters dated 30-3-2012, 7-5-2012, 27-7-2012, 27-9-2012 and 26-12-2012 sent by the respondent to IFSL, an amount of Rs.45,24,63,899/- was disbursed by the latter to the former. The respondent defaulted in payment of instalments to IFSL. It has approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) vide reference No.61/2012.

IFSL entered into a scheme of arrangement






















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top