IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. PATEL, J.
Small Industries Development Bank of India – Petitioner
Versus
M/s Metal Om Technik Pvt. Ltd. – Opposite Party
Company Petition No. 16 of 2015
Decided On : 11-08-2016
Companies Act - Winding up of Company - Section 433(e), Section 434, Section 450 - The court appointed a provisional liquidator for the respondent-Company under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956, as the company was unable to pay back its debt. The court also issued various directions to the company and its directors, including restrictions on operating bank accounts and transferring properties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-Bank provided a sizable loan to the respondent-Company, which was unable to repay the principal amount. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the respondent-Company failed to make any payments, leading the court to appoint a provisional liquidator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent-Company was unable to pay back its debt, leading to the appointment of a provisional liquidator under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Issues: The main issue was the respondent-Company's inability to repay its debt to the petitioner-Bank, leading to the need for winding up proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Companies Act, specifically Section 433(e), Section 434, and Section 450, which empowered the court to appoint a provisional liquidator and issue necessary directions to the company and its directors.
Final Decision: The court appointed a provisional liquidator for the respondent-Company, issued various directions to the company and its directors, and adjourned the matter for further proceedings.
D. N. Patel, J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that sizable loan amount has been given by this petitioner-Bank to the respondent-Company and the respondent-company is unable to pay back even the principal amount. These facts have been narrated, in detail, in the order dated 29th July, 2016, passed by this Court in this matter. The total principal amount of loan comes to Rs.3,90,00,000/- approximately. This amount is to be recovered by this petitioner-Bank with interest. Necessary notices have also been given by this petitioner-Bank to the respondent-Company.
2. Several adjournments have been taken by the respondent-Company to make, at least, part payment to this petitioner-Bank, but, nothing has been paid at all. In fact, this Court was to appoint provisional liquidator much earlier, but, the respondent-Company had tendered a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner-Bank in this Court. The said cheque has been dishonored for want of sufficiency of the fund. This is the behaviour of the respondent-Company. Thus, it appears that the respondent-Company is unable to pay back its debt and, hence, as per Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, respondent-Company may be wound up, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank. Further, it appears that as per Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, necessary notices have also been given to the respondent-Company, but, despite this fact, the respondent-Company is unable to pay back its debt.
3. I, therefore, appoint provisional liquidator for respondent-Company under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956. Notice has already been given by this Court and this Court has also perused the reply, filed by the respondent-Company and looking to the reply, filed by the respondent-Company, it appears that the respondent-Company is unable to pay back its debt due to the petitioner-Bank. The provisional liquidator will exercise all the powers, vested in him under the Companies Act, 1956, as a liquidator of the respondent-Company.
All the four Directors of the respondent-Company will not work as Directors of the respondent-Company, till further orders of this Court and the provisional liquidator will take charge of the respondent-Company.
None of the Directors of the respondent-Company will either use the vehicles or the mobile or any other perks, provided by the respondent-Company and if they are in possession of any vehicle, mobile or any other thing, provided by the respondent-Company, they will immediately surrender the same to the provisional liquidator, appointed by this Court. The respondent Company shall not pay any kind of bills henceforth from today of the mobile etc., supplied to the Directors, including Managing Director of the respondent-Company. If the Managing Director and/or the Directors are in occupation of any residential accommodation, provided by the respondent-Company, they shall vacate the same within a period of fifteen days from today and the provisional liquidator will take charge of the said residential accommodations, if any, provided to the Directors, including Managing Director.
Further, if any loan has been taken by the Managing Director and/or Directors from the respondent-Company, this fact will be highlighted by the provisional liquidator by the next date of hearing.
4. The respondent-Company operates bank account bearing No. 10413535218 of the State Bank of India, SME Branch, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. This bank account will not be operated by the Managing Director of the respondent-Company and necessary signature etc. will be taken by the State Bank of India of the provisional liquidator and the said bank account shall now be operated by the provisional liquidator. Till the formalities for operating the bank account by the provisional liquidator is completed, the Bank is hereby directed not to allow any withdrawal, without permission of this Court. However, th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.