The MOU was also number brought to the attention of the companypany companyrt till the windingup order was passed on 19.04.2010.
Shri Harin P. Raval, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, assailing the impugned order dated 02.09.2016, companytended that the appellant had never sought the status of a secured creditor in lieu of the IFCI.
It is number companysidered necessary to set out and deal with the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, except to the extent necessary for the purposes of the present order, in the limited nature of the companytroversy arising in the present appeal.
IFCI held first charge over the assets of M s. MPL for outstandings of Rs.160 crores and the Bank of Baroda with an outstanding of approximately Rs.4,68,00,000/ held second charge.
In support of the relief sought, reliance was also placed on the pursis dated 21.11.2011 filed by IFCI in OA No.452 of 2000 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad reaffirming the assignment in favour of the appellant.
It is aggrieved by the appellate order dated 02.09.2016 in O.J. Appeal No.4 of 2016, declining to interfere with the orders of the Company Judge dated 31.07.2015 in Company Application Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2018.10.08 170010 IST Reason No.248 of 2014, and also the order dated 07.09.2015, in OJMCA No.170 of 2015 declining to recall review the order dated 31.07.2015.
The appellant then filed Company Application No.248 of 2014 with a prayer for substitution in place of IFCI as a secured creditor of M s. MPL.
The deed of assignment dated 28.07.2010 was subsisting and was challenged by numbere.
Ltd. for leasing out its properties to the appellant for 20 years for repayment of its debts.
The rights and claims of the appellant under the latter was the only issue, and has number been companysidered at all.
The appeal against the same has been rejected by the impugned order.
The IFCI, Bank of Baroda respondent number3 and the Punjab National Bank respondent number4 were secured creditors, who had filed original applications against M s. MPL for recovery of their debts before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act .
NAVIN SINHA, J. Leave granted.
The appellant is an assignee of debt by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. hereinafter called as IFCI for the outstandings of M s. Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd. hereinafter referred to as M s. MPL .
The companypany was also referred for rehabilitation to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction hereinafter referred to as BIFR in Reference No.385 of 2000.
Company Petition No.150 of 1996 was filed for winding up of M s. MPL.
The finding to that effect is erroneous and companypletely misconceived.
On 28.07.2010 after the windingup order, IFCI assigned its dues to the appellant for a sum of Rs.85 lacs only and informed the official liquidator thereafter.
During pendency of the same, without permission or knowledge of the BIFR, M s. MPL entered into an unregistered memorandum of understanding hereinafter referred to as the MOU with the sister companycern of the appellant, M s. Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt.
The appellant had simply desired to be adjudged a transferee from IFCI of an actionable claim under Section 130 of the T.P. Act.
