It is number clear whether any formal order was passed impleading Madura Coats in the proceedings before the BIFR, but in any event, it does appear from the record that Madura Coats participated in the proceedings before the BIFR.
Accordingly, on a companysideration of the material on record and after hearing learned companynsel for the parties, the Company Court passed an order on 12th March, 2004 holding that Modi Rubber was unable to pay its undisputed debts and that it was just and equitable that the companypany be wound up.
By the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Special Appeal of the respondent and stayed further proceedings before the Company Court companysequent upon a winding up order passed against the respondent Modi Rubber till a final decision is taken on a reference made by Modi Rubber to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.
Eventually, after two years of adjournments, the Company Court declined to grant any further adjournment to Modi Rubber.
Before the Division Bench it was brought out for the first time that on 6th December, 2003 the Board of Directors of Modi Rubber had passed a resolution to file a reference before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction for short the BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985 for short the SICA .
153 of 2004.
Notice was issued in the Company Petition to Modi Rubber who entered appearance but took several adjournments in the matter on one pretext or the other including furnishing the schedule for repayment of the admitted dues to the creditors, an arrangement being worked out with Apollo Tyres Ltd. and various other reasons.
A view was taken by the High Court in its order dated 10th May, 2004 that the writ petition was premature and the maintainability of the reference companyld be raised by Madura Coats before the BIFR.
It was pointed out that the reference made by Modi Rubber to the BIFR was challenged by Madura Coats by filing Civil Misc.
This companytention was rejected by the High Court and it was held that the crucial date for a stay of proceedings under Section 22 of the SICA is the date on which the reference is registered with the BIFR and number the date on which an application for reference is filed.
On these broad facts, it was companytended by Modi Rubber before the Division Bench that in view of the decision of this Court in Real Value Appliances Ltd. v. Canara Bank1 on filing an application before the BIFR, all proceedings in respect of the companypany ought to have been stayed in terms of Section 22 of the SICA.
During the hearing of this appeal, further facts were placed before us.
Leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court was granted on 24th February, 2006 and the following order passed Leave granted.
It will be seen that while the application for making a reference was sent to the BIFR before the winding up order was passed by the Company Court, the reference was actually registered after the winding up order was passed by the Company Court.
17870 of 2004 in the Allahabad High Court.
Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, an application was made by Modi Rubber to the BIFR on 3rd February, 2004 which was received by the BIFR on 4th February, 2004.
Thereafter, the application was scrutinized and on 17th March, 2004 the reference made by Modi Rubber was registered as Case No.
Writ Petition No.
The final order to be passed in the winding up proceedings is an order of dissolution of the companypany under Section 481 of the Act.
Whether the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction should entertain a reference made by a sick companypany in terms of Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985, SICA after the companypany had already been directed to be wound up by a Company Judge in a matter which was pending before the Court for 2 years, vis vis Section 22 of the Act is in question in this appeal, which arises out of the judgment and order dated 20.05.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.
However, the High Court took into companysideration the subsequent events namely the fact of registration of the reference and relying upon Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Service Ltd.2 it was held that Modi Rubber was number entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA.
1.50 crores to Madura Coats within one month.
Feeling aggrieved by the winding up order, Modi Rubber preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order.
Under the circumstances, the High Court set aside the winding up order passed by the Company Court and further directed that the proceedings before him shall remain in abeyance till the disposal of proceedings before the authorities under the SICA.
Consequently, even the Division Bench of the High Court companyld number have decided the appeal filed by Modi Rubber.
Company Petition No.1 of 2002 was filed by Madura Coats in the Allahabad High Court for winding up Modi Rubber on the allegation that Modi Rubber was unable to pay its huge undisputed debts.
By an order dated 16th November, 2011 Modi Rubber was directed by the Company Court to pay an amount of Rs.
It was also held that a winding up order passed under the Companies Act, 1956 for short the Companies Act is number the culmination of the proceedings pending before the Company Court.
This payment of more than 50 of the dues was made to Madura Coats by a cheque on 15th December, 2011.
Madan B. Lokur, J. The appellant Madura Coats is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th May, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
420/2004.
420 of 2004.
Our attention has been drawn to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd., 2000 5 SCC 515, wherein this Court opined that the reference in terms of Section 15 of SICA can be made even after passing of the winding up order.
An Official Liquidator was appointed to take charge of the assets of the companypany and to submit a report along with the inventory.
