3.90 crores and laid down the modalities of utilization of the said amount for the revival of the 2nd Respondent Company.
383 of 1997 challenging the numberice issued under Section 10 5 of the ULC Act and the subsequent numberice issued by the Calcutta Improvement Trust.
21 of 1994 related to Company Petition No.
The balance amount was directed to be utilized for rehabilitation of the Company.
The said proposals of the Company and C.M.S. Ltd. were accepted by the Division Bench by an order dated 16.1.1996.
The Company placed before the Division Bench an offer from the 6th Respondent, namely, Chatterjee Management Services P Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the CMS Ltd. to purchase 15 bighas of vacant land at the companysolidated price of Rs.
The companycerned authorities were directed to register the Deed of Transfer without insisting on numberobjection certificate under Section 269UD i of I.T. Act or numberobjection certificate from the U.L.C. authorities.
90 of 1992 in the High Court of Calcutta for winding up the Company on the ground of its inability to discharge the debts.
The learned Judge dealing with the Company Petition rejected the application by an order dated 22.12.1993 on the ground that the property was mortgaged to the Bank and the scheme was number feasible.
Taking the cue from the proceedings in Company Appeal, the 2nd Respondent Company filed writ Petition No.
The State Government, on companysideration of the representation, passed a speaking order rejecting the application under Section 20 on 30.7.1997.
The High Court then questioned the companypetence of the ULC authority to declare the property as vested in the State and to take possession, without obtaining leave of the Court when proceedings under the Companies Act were pending.
The Division Bench heard arguments on the legality of the order passed by the State Government refusing the exemption and rendered the impugned judgment in the two matters before it.
811 of 1997.
Aggrieved by this order dated 24.2.1997, the Company preferred Letters Patent Appeal which is GA No.
21 of 1994.
Thereafter, various steps were taken under the ULC Act.
Simultaneously, directions were given for advertisement of the winding up petition.
The Government referred to the decision of the Supreme Court and proceeded to companysider the question from the angle of undue hardship and public interest.
1.80 crores to the United Bank of India as per the settlement terms, 60 lakhs to the workmen and the actual amount payable to Eastern Coal Agency.
21 of 1994 as well as GA No.
However, further proceedings including advertisement were stayed subject to the companydition of the Company paying the amount due to the creditor in instalments.
the factory building, plant and machinery, companytiguous land etc.
The instalments companyld number be paid by the Company as directed.
This order passed under the ULC Act had created a stalemate in regard to implementation of the proposals submitted by CMS Ltd. which received the approval of Division Bench.
The High Court observed that it is expected that the Government shall companysider and give due weight to the project which Mr. Mukherjees client wants to implement in the light of the policy decision already taken by the State Government and the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above.
It appears that the writ petition was assigned for disposal to the Bench hearing the Company Appeal.
The Company was also required to pay the statutory dues and taxes.
3.90 crores.
The latest order on the subject is dated 6th January, 1998 which is subsequent to the rejection order of Government .
The time schedule for payment of the amount by CMS Ltd. was set out for the purpose of implementation of the order and two advocates were appointed as Special Officers, whose fee was liable to be paid by the Company.
3.90 crores.
811 of 1997 arising out of Writ Petition No.
In doing so, the State Government placed strong reliance on certain guidelines issued by the State Government in regard to the surplus land held by sick industrial units.
The Company filed an application under Section 20 ULC Act on 18.6.1991 seeking exemption of excess vacant land held by it on the ground that part of the vacant land had to be necessarily sold for discharging the dues and for revival of the Company.
Moreover, in the judgment under appeal, the learned Judges wrongly assumed that the order dated 22.12.1993 was passed on the application of one of the creditors to sell the property.
The said petition was admitted on 16th March, 1992.
90 of 1992 and GA No.
The High Court did number agree with the stand taken by the State Government that the power of exemption cannot be exercised after vesting of the land.
The State Government was required to take decision within four weeks from the date of receipt of application.
Notice under Section 10 5 calling upon the 2nd Respondent denies the same.
In sum of substance, the High Court set aside the order of the State Government rejecting the 2nd Respondent Companys application for exemption under Section 20 of the Urban and Ceiling and Regulation Act hereinafter referred to as the ULC Act , directed the Special Officer, appointed by the Court to transfer and hand over the vacant possession of 300 companytahs of land declared surplus under the ULC Act to the 6th respondent on receipt of Rs.
The High Court pointed out that in any case the possession of the land was number taken and, therefore, the Company was still holding the land.
On 15.4.1997, the Division Bench passed an order in A.P.O. No.
In the year 1991, the Company totally suspended its operations on account of financial and marketing problems.
The Court, having numbered that CMS Ltd. had approached the State Government for getting clearance under ULC Act, directed the State Government to pass appropriate orders in that behalf.
Notification under Section 10 3 was published on 24.7.1995.
As the things stood thus, a creditor of the Company by name Eastern Coal Agency, filed Company Petition No.
Out of the said amount, the Company appellant before the High Court was directed to pay Rs.
This Court, passed an interim order on 14.02.2000 directing the Official Liquidator, Calcutta High Court to make an inventory of all the assets and to ensure and safeguard the said assets lying at 21, Sil Lane and 24 Christopher Road, Calcutta and to submit a report.
The excess vacant land was finally determined as 19,904 sq.
The further companyment was that the proposal given by CMS Ltd. was number kept in view and the Government chose to follow some unknown existing guidelines.
The scheme envisaged payment being made to the creditors by sale of a portion of the Companys land measuring 20 bighas.
Against the order dated 22.12.1993 passed in the Company Application, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench, which is A.P.O. No.
The Company prayed for companyfirmation of proposed sale of approximately 20,000 square metres to C.M.S. Ltd. The Division Bench of the High Court numbered that according to the proposal of C.M.S. Ltd., the dues to the Bank and other creditors will be cleared and arrears of salaries to workmen will be paid and the balance of about one crore companyld be utilized by the Company for revival of industry.
The case has long history.
The order in question has been purportedly passed in exercise of two jurisdictions one under the Companies Act and the other under Writ jurisdiction.
While so, the Company came forward with a scheme application purportedly under Sections 391 1 391 6 of the Companies Act.
811 of 1997 directing the Statement Government to pass a fresh order under Section 20 on a fresh application filed by the 2nd Respondent Company.
were mortgaged to United Bank of India through equitable mortgage and the Bank filed a suit in the year 1992 for recovery of money by enforcing the mortgage.
In the year 1976, the 2nd Respondent by name Sur Enamel Stamping Works Private Ltd. hereafter referred to as Company , filed a declaration under the ULC Act.
The High Court indicated that the fresh decision should be taken according to law, keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.R. Thandur v. Union of India and in the light of the Project Report submitted before the Court pursuant to the offer of CMS Ltd. and also the existing State policy.
Certain essential facts need narration to companye to the grips of the issue involved.
383 of 1997 , the present appeals have been preferred by the State of West Bengal after obtaining special leave.
It may be stated that the assets of the Company viz.
The Government was also of the view that, on account of vesting order, the grant of exemption would number be in accordance with law.
Reverting back to the Writ Petition filed in February, 1997, it appears that the learned Single Judge while directing the Writ Petition to be posted for orders after two weeks, declined to grant interim relief on the ground that numberurgency was made out.
On 4.2.1997, the Division Bench passed a further order in the Company Appeal.
Such orders were issued by the Government on 22nd December, 1989 and 26th November, 1992.
By that time, the application filed under Section 20 of the ULC Act was rejected by the State Government by an order dated 6.2.1995.
Venkatarama Reddi, J. Aggrieved by the companymon order dated August 5, 1998 passed by the Division Bench of High Court at Calcutta in APO No.
That is how the SLPs came to be filed by the State, leading to these appeals.
3.90 crores provided it was transferred free from all charges and encumbrances and necessary permissions approvals from the Court, secured creditors and the Urban Ceiling authorities were obtained.
meters.
The Company was permitted to sell 300 companytahs of land delineated in the annexed Plan for the sale price of Rs.
Direction was sought to restrain the authorities companycerned from giving effect to the vesting order.
