Appellant claiming to be representative of Bangar Group of Industries, Calcutta, filed an application in the said case.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1661 OF 2008 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.10587 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Reference was made to the response of the Official Liquidator who had stated further information may be called for from the appellant.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 483 of the Act before the Division Bench on 11.1.2007.
Eventually the High Court started the process of disposal of the assets of the companypany.
The appellants grievance is that the same was disposed of without giving any reason or even without companysidering the desirability of the revival.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court summarily dismissing the Company Appeal No.4 of 2006 filed by the appellant under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 in short the Act .
IA filed by the appellant was disposed of.
Though various grounds have been urged in support of the appeal, the primary ground of challenge is that such summary disposal is indefensible particularly when the appeal is a statutory appeal.
By the impugned order the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
The appellant offered to pay Rs.65.51 crores as companysideration money for purchase of assets of the companypany in liquidation and proposed to invest Rs.650 crores for revival of the industry.
The Company Judge proceeded with the matter and directed sale of the assets of the companypany in favour of the Indian Railways who had made offer of Rs.140 crores.
On 25.8.2006 the matter was heard by the High Court which directed for issuance of sale numberice for assets of the companypany.
On 12.3.2007, IA was filed by the appellant giving details of his proposal.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Company case number3 of 1984 was filed before the Patna High Court in respect of Rohtas Industries Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the companypany which purportedly had become sick.
It is the case of the appellant that though efforts were made to revive, it companyld number materialized.
