THE BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, SHAMPA SARKAR, J
THE BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC – Appellant
Versus
THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Yashovardhan Kochar, Advocate, Mr. Anirudha Agarwalla, Advocate, Mr. K. Thaker, Advocate, Mr. Jaydeb Ghorai, Advocate, Mr. Suman Chatterjee, Advocate, Mr. Diptesh Ghorai, Advocate, Mr. Yash Singhi, Advocate, Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate, Mr. Balaji Chakraborty, Advocate, Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar, Advocate, Mr. Subhrangsu Ganguly, Advocate, Mr. Kishore Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Susmita Shaw, Advocate, Mr. Rajib Mullick, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Sarkar, Advocate, Mr. Jishnu Saha, Senior Advocate, Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate, Mr. Ishan Saha, Advocate, Mr. Lal Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, Advocate, Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Advocate, Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Ms. Arundhati Barman Roy, Advocate, Ms. Tanvi Luhariwala, Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Sourav Kumar Mukherjee, Advocate, Ms. Anjana Banerjee, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Kejriwal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arik Banerjee, Advocate, Mr. Anuran Samanta, Advocate, Mr. Suman Chakraborty, Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Asish Kumar Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. Basu, Advocate, Mr. A. Kanodia, Advocate, Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Binay Kumar Jain, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Jain, Advocate

Table of Content
1. supreme court observations on creditor rights. (Para 14 , 15)
2. status of management orders and company control. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. judicial interpretation of commercial morality. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
4. discussion of the permanence of stay orders. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. delineating excising claims related to management. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
6. overall judicial authority in winding up proceedings. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
7. conclusion on financial health and future proceedings. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)

ORDER

1. Special leave granted. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. Having regard to the scope of this appeal and having considered the report of the Special Officer, dated 13th November 1988 made pursuant to the order of this Court, we are of the opinion that the scheme supported by the workers and unsecured creditors of Raj Kumar Nemani, be accepted and a detailed scheme on that basis be formulated. It is desirable that the scheme be implemented as soon as possible and the workers and the creditors should be paid in accordance with the scheme, approved today. Further, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to work out the scheme by the learned Company Judge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

CALCUTTA HIGH COURTPRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, SHAMPA SARKAR, JTHE BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC – AppellantVersusTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR – Respondent

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, SHAMPA SARKAR, J
THE BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC – Appellant
Versus
THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR – Respondent