Calcutta High Court
Nicco Corporation Ltd vs Stantech Project Engineering (P) Ltd on 3 September, 2015
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD-1&2
2/9/15
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Original Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
CP No.431 of 2000
NICCO CORPORATION LTD.
-And-
STANTECH PROJECT ENGINEERING (P) LTD.
CP No.432 of 2000
NICCO CORPORATION LTD.
-And-
STANTECH PROJECT ENGINEERING (P) LTD.
Appearance:
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Sourjya Roy, Adv.
...for the company.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : September 3, 2015.
The Court : This petition has appeared pursuant to an
order of the Supreme Court passed on August 13, 2015.
When the matter appeared on August 27, 2015, the company
was represented and it was submitted on its behalf that the
company had applied for review before the Supreme Court. A week's
adjournment was sought and was granted.
It is now submitted on behalf of the company that a
mistaken submission was made on August 26, 2015 that a petition
for review had already been filed. The company says that the
petition for review has not yet been filed but the company
proposes to file the same. It is ironical that the company relies
2
on a mistaken submission in this case when the entire claim of the
petitioning creditor has been allowed on what the company had
previously described to be a mistaken submission of Advocate
appearing for the company at the admission stage. The order of
admission passed on concession was challenged in appeal. The
appellate order of September 29, 2003 accepted that submission
made by junior Counsel on behalf of the company was a mistake as
it was inconsistent with the reply of the company to the statutory
notice. The appellate Court accepted the explanation on behalf of
the company, set aside the order of admission and remanded the
matter to the Company Court.
A special leave petition from the appellate order
resulted in Civil Appeal No.7373 of 2005 before the Supreme Court
which has been allowed on August 13, 2015 by issuing the following
direction:
"7. These Appeals are allowed. We, however, modify
the Orders of the learned Single Judge by directing the
Respondent to pay the said admitted dues of Rs.3,54,500/-
and Rs.8,08,314/- together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, as also the costs imposed by the learned Company Judge at 600 GMs. If the two sums of TDS of Rs.1,09,958/- and Rs.1,24,984/- have not been deposited with the Income Tax Department, these sums shall also be paid to the Appellant. The Respondent shall also pay to the Appellant the costs of these proceedings qualified at Rs.20,000/-. All these amounts are payable within 45 days from today. No extension for payment shall be granted since the accommodation and the indulgence granted by the learned Company Judge has been abused by the Respondent. In the event of failure to make the above mentioned 3 payments, the Appellant shall be entitled to once again move the learned Company Judge, who will thereupon admit the Winding-up petition, and proceed with expedition under the relevant provisions of law."
The petitioning creditor is not represented. The company says that it seeks to have the order of August 13, 2015 reviewed since it could not be brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that a reference pertaining to the company was pending under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.
Let these petitions stand over for a fortnight. Advocate for the company will immediately inform the petitioning creditor and Advocate for the petitioning creditor of this order.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) A/s.