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

1999 Supreme(Bom) 31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
F.I. Rebello, J.
In the matter of sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
AND
In the matter of Chemox Chemical Industries Limited, a Public Limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Pooran Asha Building, 317, Narsi Natha Street, Mumbai - 400 009.
Tata Finance Limited ..... Petitioners.
Company Application (LODG.) No. 22 of 1999 in Company Petition No. 544 of 1998, decided on 19-1-1999.
Advocates appeared :
R.M. Kadam with N. Dinkar Rao, for applicant/Company.
N.G. Thakkar with Miss P.A. Shah, for petitioners.
S.C. Gupta, Dy. O.L. present.

The registration of a case with BIFR under SICA suspends all proceedings in winding up, including the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator.

Headnote:

COMPANY LAW - WINDING UP - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - BIFR REGISTRATION - EFFECT - POWERS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS - RESIDUARY POWERS - SECTION 450(3) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - SECTION 15, 22, 31, 33 OF THE SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1985.

Fact of the Case:

Petition for winding up of a company was filed in the High Court. The Official Liquidator was appointed as Provisional Liquidator. The company moved the High Court to stay the winding up order and restrain the Official Liquidator from taking further steps, as it had referred the matter to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA).

Finding of the Court:

1. The Board of Directors of a company does not become defunct upon the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator and retains certain residuary powers, including the power to refer the matter to BIFR for rehabilitation of the company. 2. The registration of a case with BIFR under SICA suspends all proceedings in winding up, including the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator. 3. The act of taking possession of assets by the Official Liquidator is not merely an administrative act and is also suspended upon registration of the case with BIFR.

Issues: 1. Whether the Board of Directors can move BIFR under SICA after the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator? 2. Whether the order of BIFR can be considered non est due to suppression of facts? 3. Whether the act of the Official Liquidator taking possession of assets is merely an administrative act and not suspended by the registration of the case with BIFR?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 450(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that a Provisional Liquidator has the same powers as a liquidator unless restricted by the Court. However, the Board of Directors retains certain residuary powers, including the power to refer the matter to BIFR for rehabilitation of the company. 2. Section 22 of SICA provides that upon registration of a case with BIFR, all proceedings in winding up, including the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator, are suspended. 3. The act of taking possession of assets by the Official Liquidator is not merely an administrative act and is also suspended upon registration of the case with BIFR.

Final Decision: The High Court stayed all further proceedings against the company in terms of section 22 of SICA.

JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---Leave under Rule 19(3) of the Company Court Rules, 1989 granted to the applicants to take out a Judge's Summons in terms of draft Judge's Summons handed in. By consent, made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioners have filed the petition for winding up against the Company. By order of this Court dated 13th November, 1998 the Official Liquidator was appointed as Provisional Liquidator. By the present application, the Company has moved this Court to stay the order dated 13th November, 1998 admitting the Company petition and appointing the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator till the disposal of Reference under B.I.F.R. By a further prayer clause (b), the Company has prayed that the Official Liquidator be restrained from taking further steps as per the order of this Court dated 13th November, 1998 without obtaining any prior permission from B.I.F.R.

3. A few facts need be stated.

Petition for winding up was filed in this Court on 18th May, 1998. According to the Company, the accounts were made upon 15th October, 1998. The company found that their net worth had eroded by more than 50% and consequently at a Board meeting held on 3rd November, 1998 passed a Resolution to move the B.I.F.R. under the provisions of S.I.C. (SP) Act, 1985. It is the case of the Company that thereafter they sent the papers to their Counsel at Delhi for lodging the application. They received the papers from their Counsel on 11th November, 1998. The application was signed by the Chairman and Managing Director on 12th November, 1998. The papers were thereafter sent to the Advocate at Delhi on 18th November, 1998 and the application was lodged with B.I.F.R. on 19th November, 1998. The said application was registered with B.I.F.R. on 1st December, 1998. A communication to that effect dated 1st December, 1998 was sent to the Company, a copy of which has been annexed to the affidavit dated 12th December, 1998 of Shri Surendra Kumar Seth, Constituted Attorney and the Vice President of the Company. Pursuant to the order of this Court an additional affidavit was filed on 16th January, 1999. In the said affidavit, it is clarified that the papers were lodged with B.I.F.R. on 19th November, 1998 by their Advocate though the Reference is dated 12th November, 1998. This Court admitted the petition on 13th November, 1998 and appointed a provisional liquidator by the very same order.

4. On behalf of the Company, it is contended that by virtue of the proceedings being registered with the B.I.F.R. on 1st December, 1998 all further proceedings in the Company Petition must stand suspended and/or stayed.

On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that once a Provisional Liquidator was appointed by order of this Court on 13th November, 1998 the Board of Directors could have taken no steps to pass the Resolution to refer the matter to B.I.F.R. It is secondly contended that the Company suppressed the facts from this Court as also B.I.F.R., in as much as, this Court was not informed on 13th November, 1998 that the Company had approached the B.I.F.R. as also in the form it was not mentioned that a liquidator had been appointed. Learned Counsel points out that in respect of another sister company, when the petition came up for admission on the very same day, in view of registration of the case under SIC(SP) Act, 1985 this Court stayed all further proceedings against the said Company. In the light of that and in view of the suppression of material facts before this Court it is contended that the order of the B.I.F.R. is non est and/or should be ignored and the provisional liquidator should be allowed to formally take over possession of the assets of the Company.

5. With this background the issues that need to be decided are as under:-

a) Whether on appointment of a Provisional Liquidator the Board of Directors can move B.I.F.R. under the provisions of SIC (SP) Act, 1985?

b) Whether on account of suppression of facts the Order of B.I.F.R. c


















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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top