Prakash Shrivastava, J.

I.A. No.4759/2015 has been filed by the respondent M/s. Plethico Pharmaceuticals Ltd. under Section 5 of Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Upkram (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1978 (for short Act of 1978) seeking suspension/stay of the further proceedings in the present company petition till 15.6.2016.

2. OLR 17/2015 has been filed by the OL with a grievance that the management of the respondent-Company is not providing the details of the assets in terms of the order dated 7.4.2015.

3. In brief, this Company Petition has been filed for winding up of the respondent-Company under Section 433(e) & (f) read with Section 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. This Court vide order dated 1.10.2014 had admitted the company petition and vide order dated 7.4.2015 had appointed the Provisional Liquidator on certain terms and had permitted the petitioner publication of the Company Petition in terms of Rule 24 and 96 of the Company (Court) Rules. Since the direction issued by this Court on 7.4.2015 were not complied with, therefore, OLR 17/2015 was filed by the OL and at this stage respondent Company had filed the application under Section 5 of the Act of 1978 seeking stay of the proceedings.

4. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Company pressing I.A. No.4759/2015 submits that since the respondent Company has been declared as relief undertaking under Section 3 of the Act of 1978 vide Notification dated 16.6.2015, therefore, the proceedings in the present company petition are to be stayed under Section 5 of the Act. He has further submitted that the notification under Section 5 has the overriding effect and is applicable to the winding up proceedings also. He has further submitted that validity of the notification under Section 5 cannot be examined in these winding up proceedings and for the same, the proper remedy available to the other parties is to approach the writ court. He has further submitted that the subject for which the notification has been issued, falls in the concurrent list Entry 19, 23, 33 & 36 of the Constitution, therefore, question of repugnancy does not arise and Article 254(2) is attracted and consent of the President is relevant which has been taken. He has further submitted that Section 466 of the Companies Act is attracted after passing of the winding up order and that since issuance of notification is administrative act, therefore, Section 446(2)(d) of the Companies Act is not attracted.

5. Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the notification dated 16.6.2015 is void and without jurisdiction, therefore, it is a nullity and this aspect can be examined in collateral proceedings. He has further submitted that requisite recital about recording the satisfaction and that respondent is a state industrial undertaking is missing in the notification and no notification under Section 4 has been issued therefore Section 6 of Act will not be attracted. He further submits that applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the words "other legal proceedings" will take their colour from the previous word "suit", therefore, they are required to be narrowly construed and notification will not be applicable to the winding up proceedings. He has further submitted that the subject matter of the notification is covered by Entry 43, 44 and 45 of the Union List, therefore, Article 254(2) is not attracted and assent of the President is not relevant. He has also submitted that the narrow interpretation will save the statute from the vice of repugnancy. Alternatively he has submitted that even if the notification dated 16.6.2015 is valid, then also it will not wipe off the order passed by this Court prior to the issuance of notification and those orders are to be given the full effect.

6. Shri H.Y. Mehta, learned counsel for the OL has submitted that Section 466 of the Companies Act provides for stay of the proceedings and the conditions of this Section