Winding up proceedings under SICA are abated if the Act is repealed, resulting in a final order under the Companies Act.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

25 30-01-2026 The instant Winding up proceeding against the petitioner-company, namely, M/s Nalanda Electrosteel Pvt. Ltd. was initiated by this Court as per the recommendations made u/s 20(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (SICA), 1985 by the "Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR)" in the light of the order dated

19.07.2010 passed in BIFR Case No.-216/2002.

2. In view of the aforesaid facts, Company Petition No.-06/2010 instituted on 04.08.2010 in this Court and recommendation of BIFR has been treated as a main petition for winding up. Notices were issued to the Company, the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Industry Department, Bank of Maharashtra, BSFC, BICICO and, as per the service report, the notices were validly served through their respective offices.

3. Thereafter, as directed, vide order dated

16.12.2010, BICICO, a secured creditor made an advertisement in Form-48 as provided under Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 in "Hindustan" (Hindi) and "Times of India" (English) inviting applications from any creditor/contributory or other person desirous of supporting or opposing the winding up proceeding.

4. On 21.04.2011, the Company has filed a petition under Section 22 (1) of the SICA, 1985, in which it is stated that the order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), New Delhi in Case No.- 216 of 2002, on the basis of which proceedings for winding up of the petitioner-Company initiated, has been challenged by the Company by filing an appeal under Section 25 of the said Act before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR), New Delhi. It was submitted that in terms of (1) of the said Act, winding up proceeding against the petitioner-Company should not be proceeded without the consent of the AAIFR. In the said circumstances, vide order dated 05.05.2011, the present proceeding was stayed until the conclusion of Appeal No. 279 of 2010 before the AAIFR.

5. The Official Liquidator in its report bearing O.L.R.

No.-142/2025 submitted that the SICA, 1985 has been amended by the the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 and by Section-3 of the repealing Act, Section 1 of 1986 and the resolution of Appellate Authority and the Board has been repealed and the Appellate Authority and the Board stood dissolved.

6. Section 4 (6) of Sick Industrial Companies Repeal Act, 2003 clearly states that any appeal preferred to the Appellate Authority or any reference made to the Board or any enquiry pending before the Board or any other authority or any proceeding of whatsoever nature pending before the Appellate Authority or the Board immediately before the commencement of this Act shall stand abated. Hence, in terms with the aforesaid provision, Appeal No.- 279 of 2010 has already been abated as per amended provision of the Act.

7. Having found substance to the submission that SICA, 1985 was repealed in 2016 and IBC ( Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ) was brought into force, this Court vide order dated 23.02.2023, appointed an Official Liquidator attached to this Court as Provisional Liquidator of the Company, namely, M/s Nalanda Electrosteel Pvt. Ltd., under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and the position obtaining in law, this Court thinks it fit and proper to pass winding up order. Hence, it is ordered that in view of Section 433 (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, the affairs of the Company is completely wound up and Official Liquidator of this Court has been appointed as a Liquidator of the Company, namely, M/s Nalanda Electrosteel Pvt. Ltd. under Section 448 of th