IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JJ.
Indowind Energy Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs – Respondent
W.P. No. 25373 of 2018, W.M.P. Nos. 29520, 29522 of 2018
Decided On : 05-08-2019
Constitution of India - Articles 226, 14, 19(1)(g), 20, 21 and 323 B -Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 -Section 7, 8 or 9 - Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 - Rule 2(a) & Rule 5 - Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 - Rule 5 - Companies Act, 1956 - Section 433/434 - petitioner Indowind Energy Limited has filed the instant writ petition for a declaration, that Rule 2(a) & Rule 5 of the Companies Rules, 2016 and Rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 amending the earlier Rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 notified by the Central Government exercising its powers under Section 434(1) and 470(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 to the effect directing the winding up petitions filed/pending under Section 433/434 of the Companies Act, 1956 before Honble High Court to be dealt with under Section 7, 8 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and to be adjudicated under the said provisions by Ld - National Company Law Tribunal/National Company Law Appellate Tribunal as ultra vires the legislative competence of the parliament/repugnant to existing provisions of the Section 433/434 of Companies Act, 1956 as saved in terms of the saving provisions of Section 465 of Companies Act, 2013 and ultra vires provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20, 21 and 323 B of the Constitution of India – Held, other maxim is lex non cogit ad impossibilia - Law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform - Law itself and administration of it, said Sir W. Scott, with reference to an alleged infraction of the revenue laws, must yield to that to which everything must bend, to necessity; the law, in its most positive and peremptory injunctions, is understood to disclaim, as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of laws must adopt that general exception in the consideration of all particular cases - Connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring the impugned Rule 2(a) & Rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 and Rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 amending the earlier Rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 notified by the Central Government exercising its powers under Section 434(1) and 470(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 to the effect of directing the winding up petitions filed/pending under Section 433/434 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai to be treated as an applicant under Section 7, 8 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to be adjudicated under the said provisions by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal/National Company Law Appellate Tribunal as ultra vires the legislative competence of the parliament/repugnant to the existing provisions of the Section 433/434 of the Companies Act, 1956 as saved in terms of the saving provisions of Section 465 of the Companies Act, 2013 and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20, 21 and 323 B of the Constitution of India.
1. The petitioner Indowind Energy Limited, Chennai, has filed the instant writ petition for a declaration, that Rule 2(a) & Rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 and Rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 amending the earlier Rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 notified by the Central Government exercising its powers under Section 434(1) and 470(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 to the effect directing the winding up petitions filed/pending under Section 433/434 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai to be dealt with under Section 7, 8 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and to be adjudicated under the said provisions by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal/National Company Law Appellate Tribunal as ultra vires the legislative competence of the parliament/repugnant to the existing provisions of the Section 433/434 of the Companies Act, 1956 as saved in terms of the saving provisions of Section 465 of the Companies Act, 2013 and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20, 21 and 323 B of the Constitution of India.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner company was incorporated under the Companies Act, on 19.07.1995. The main objects of the company is to carry on business of Generating Energy from Wind using Wind Mills, Wind Turbines and other equipments to sell, distribute, supply and share the energy to the Governments, Companies, Industries, Electricity Boards and Individuals. The Company also provides services including installation, commission, operation and maintenance of all kinds of power generation equipments, machineries and plants.
3. It is stated that the petitioner company raised funds through bonds to the tune of 30 Million USD on 21.12.2007 with a maturity date falling due on 22.12.2012 and coupon rate of 2.5% semi annually. The bank of New York (BNY) was appointed as the Trustee to manage the affairs of the bonds.
4. The petitioner states that it was making the payments regularly for the 3 semi annual periods and during the 3rd semi annual period, since there was severe recession all over the world, there was default. It is stated that the petitioner company and its bond holders resolved to restructure the terms of the bonds.
5. The petitioner states that as per the restructured terms, the coupon rate was made NIL and on maturity it was agreed that 50% shares and 50% cash would be given.
6. It is stated that in the year 2011, after agreeing to the restructured terms, the trustee viz. Bank of New York, Mellon, the 3rd respondent issued a demand notice. The same was disputed by the petitioner company. It is stat
SupremeToday
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.