Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Peacock Industries Ltd vs None on 19 July, 2011
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
113 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 4/2007.
In the matter of Peacock Industries Ltd.
with
114 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 16/1996.
Vadilal Financial Services
Vs.
Peacock Industries Ltd.
..
115 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 4/1997.
Zuari Leasing & Finance Corporation Vs. Peacock Industries Ltd.
..
116 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 1/1998.
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Peacock Industries Ltd.
..
117 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 5/1998.
Nagarjuna Finance Limited Vs. Peacock Industries Ltd.
..
118 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 6/1998.
D.C.M. Shriram Leasing & Finance Ltd.
Vs. Peacock Industries Limited ..
119 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 12/1998.
I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Finance & Investments Ltd.
Vs. Peacock Industries Limited ..
120 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 17/1998.
Bank of India Vs. Peacock Industries Limited ..
121 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 1/1999.
Ind Bank Merchant Banking Services Ltd.
Vs. Peacock Industries Limited ..
122 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 4/1999.
Premium Polyalloys Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Peacock Industries Limited ..
2Date of Order :: 19th July 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Vinay Kothari, for Peacock Industries.
Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arvind Singh Rathore ] Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. O.P. Pungalia and Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit ] Mr. J.K. Chanda ] Mr. S.G. Ojha ] Mr. Jagdish Vyas ] Mr. Manoj Bhandari with Mr. Sushil Bishnoi ] Mr. Ramit Mehta with Mr. Pradhyumn Singh ], for the respective parties.
Mr. R.C. Mishra, Official Liquidator. Mr. Vikas Balia, for the Official Liquidator.
<<>> Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
These petitions relating to the same Company, Peacock Industries Limited, have been placed on Board together and after considering these matters comprehensively, it appears appropriate that 3 of these petitions (Nos. 6/1998, 17/1998 and 4/1999) be dismissed for settlements having been arrived at, the other matters be adjourned sine die. Having regard to the circumstances, it appears proper that all the matters are dealt with in this common order.
Company Petition No. 4/2007:
The background aspect of the matter are that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR') referred 3 the matter by the order dated 22.02.2007 whereupon this Company Petition bearing number 4/2007 has been registered in this Court.
However, it was noticed earlier by this Court that the respondent-Company (Peacock Industries Ltd.) has preferred an appeal (No. 105/2007) against the order dated 22.02.2007 so passed by the BIFR to the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction ('AIFR').
In the order dated 23.09.2008, this Court took note of the fact of pendency of the appeal against the order 22.02.2007 and the petition was adjourned sine die because at that stage, there had been stay operating, as granted by AIFR, against the said order dated 22.02.2007. The matter was ordered to be consigned to record to be revived on an application of either of the parties after decision of the AIFR.
The said order dated 23.09.2008 was, however, later on withdrawn by the Hon'ble Company Judge on 14.10.2008 for the matter being of the exception of the Bench. This matter and the connected matters have remained pending since then.
However, now, a copy of the order said to have been passed by the AIFR on 13.06.2011 has been placed on record wherefrom it is noticed that AIFR allowed the appeal, set aside the order of winding up passed by the BIFR and remanded the matter to the BIFR with the directions that the appellant (Peacock Industries Ltd.) shall file the revival proposal before the BIFR and so also supply a copy of the same to the OA 4 within 15 days; and that the OA, on the basis of the proposal, shall prepare a Draft Revival Scheme ('DRS') and submit the same to the BIFR within 30 days and thereafter, the BIFR shall consider the DRS in accordance with law. The AIFR has ordered as under:-
"In view of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that an opportunity should be granted to the company for its revival. Therefore, considering the aforesaid submission, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of winding up and remand the case back to the BIFR with the direction that the appellant shall file the revival proposal before the BIFR and also supply a copy of the same to the OA within 15 days. The OA, on the basis of this proposal, prepare a DRS and submit the same to the BIFR within 30 days of the receipt of the revival proposal from the appellant company and thereafter the BIFR will consider the DRS in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the BIFR on 15th July, 2011 for further direction."
It is informed that pursuant to the order dated 13.06.2011, the matter remains pending with the BIFR.
In the given sets of facts and the present obtainable position, it does not appear appropriate to proceed with this matter at this stage. Though the proceedings in this petition could have been terminated but having regard to the fact that the other connected petitions relating to the same Company are pending in this Court, it appears just and proper that this petition be not dismissed at this stage but be adjourned sine die, to be considered for revival after the decision by the BIFR.
5Accordingly, this petition is adjourned sine die, to be considered for its revival on an application, if and when moved.
Company Petitions Nos. 16/1996, 4/1997, 1/1998, 5/1998, 12/1998 and 1/1999:
In view of the facts noticed by this Court in the above order relating to Company Petition No. 4/2007 and further the fact that the matter is pending before the BIFR pursuant to the order of remand as passed by the AIFR, it does not appear appropriate to hear these matters at this stage. These petitions also deserve to be adjourned sine die, to be revived on an application moved by either of the parties.
Accordingly, these matters are also adjourned sine die, to be taken up for consideration on an application for revival, if and when moved by either of the parties. Company Petition No. 6/1998: D.C.M. Shriram Leasing & Finance Ltd. Vs. Peacock Industries Limited.
In this matter, an application (IA No. 3897/2011) has been moved by the respondent-Company with the submissions that the petitioner and the respondent-Company entered into an MOU dated 16.01.2006 whereby the respondent-Company agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 6 4,00,000/- (Four lacs) to the petitioner towards its outstanding dues by way of 16 monthly installments each of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand); and that pursuant to the said MOU, the petitioner DCM Shriram Leasing & Finance Limited withdrew its case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent-Company. It is submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this petition may be dismissed as not pressed. The application is signed by the authorised representative of the petitioner- Company and the Director of the respondent-Company; and is also supported by the affidavits of the authorised representative of the petitioner-Company and the Director of the respondent-Company.
Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner-Company. There appears no reason to disbelieve the submissions made on behalf of the respondent-Company; and in the totality of the circumstances, this petition can only be treated as redundant and no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the same.
Accordingly, and while accepting the application (IA No. 3897/2011), Company Petition No. 6/1998 is dismissed as rendered redundant subject, of course, to all just exceptions.7
Company Petition No. 17/1998: Bank of India Vs. Peacock Industries Limited.
In Company Petition No. 17/1998, an application (IA No. 3896/2011) has been moved on behalf of the respondent- Company with the submissions that the petitioner Bank of India has assigned its entire debt towards the respondent- Company to Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. ('ARCIL'); that by the communication dated 20.05.2010, ARCIL confirmed that they had approved the settlement proposal dated 26.04.2010 of the respondent-Company qua the petitioner-Bank; and that pursuant to such communications, the respondent-Company has deposited all its dues and has cleared all the outstanding of the petitioner-Bank.
It is submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Company Petition may be dismissed.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank do not dispute the submissions that the petitioner-Bank had already assigned its debt to the said ARCIL and candidly admit that the petitioner-Bank is no longer interested in prosecuting this Company Petition as it has no debt due against the respondent-Company.
Having regard to the submissions so made ad idem, while accepting the application (IA No. 3896/2011), Company Petition No. 17/1998 is dismissed. 8
Company Petition No. 4/1999: Premium Polyalloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Peacock Industries Limited.
In Company Petition No. 4/1999, the respondent- Company has moved an application (IA No. 3895/2011) with the submissions that the petitioner-Company and the respondent-Company have arrived at a settlement and all the dues of the petitioner-Company have been paid and there remains no outstanding.
The application is signed by the Directors of both, the petitioner-Company and the respondent-Company; and is also supported by the affidavits of the Directors of both the Companies.
The learned counsel Mr. Manoj Bhandari appearing for the petitioner-Company submits that he has no instructions to the contrary.
In view of the above, there appears no reason to continue with this petition any further.
Accordingly, and accepting the application (IA No. 3895/2011), Company Petition No. 4/1999 is also dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed on the record of each individual case.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/ 9 10 114 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 16/1996.
Vadilal Financial Services Vs. Peacock Industries Ltd.
..
Date of Order :: 19th July 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI <<>> This petition stands adjourned sine die, to be revived on an application moved by either of the parties vide common order made in S.B. Company Petition No. 4/2007 : In the matter of Peacock Industries Limited.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/ 11 115 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 4/1997.
Zuari Leasing & Finance Corporation Vs. Peacock Industries Ltd.
..
Date of Order :: 19th July 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI <<>> This petition stands adjourned sine die, to be revived on an application moved by either of the parties vide common order made in S.B. Company Petition No. 4/2007 : In the matter of Peacock Industries Limited.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/ 12 116 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 1/1998.
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Peacock Industries Ltd.
..
Date of Order :: 19th July 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI <<>> This petition stands adjourned sine die, to be revived on an application moved by either of the parties vide common order made in S.B. Company Petition No. 4/2007 : In the matter of Peacock Industries Limited.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/ 13 117 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 5/1998.
Nagarjuna Finance Limited Vs. Peacock Industries Ltd.
..
Date of Order :: 19th July 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI <<>> This petition stands adjourned sine die, to be revived on an application moved by either of the parties vide common order made in S.B. Company Petition No. 4/2007 : In the matter of Peacock Industries Limited.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/ 14 118 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 6/1998. D.C.M. Shriram Leasing & Finance Ltd.
Vs. Peacock Industries Limited ..
Date of Order :: 19th July 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI <<>> This Company Petition stands dismissed vide common order made in S.B. Company Petition No. 4/2007 : In the matter of Peacock Industries Limited.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/ 15 119 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 12/1998.
I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Finance & Investments Ltd.
Vs. Peacock Industries Limited ..
Date of Order :: 19th July 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI <<>> This petition stands adjourned sine die, to be revived on an application moved by either of the parties vide common order made in S.B. Company Petition No. 4/2007 : In the matter of Peacock Industries Limited.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/ 16 120 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 17/1998.
Bank of India Vs. Peacock Industries Limited ..
Date of Order :: 19th July 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI <<>> This Company Petition stands dismissed vide common order made in S.B. Company Petition No. 4/2007 : In the matter of Peacock Industries Limited.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/ 17 121 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 1/1999.
Ind Bank Merchant Banking Services Ltd.
Vs. Peacock Industries Limited ..
Date of Order :: 19th July 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI <<>> This petition stands adjourned sine die, to be revived on an application moved by either of the parties vide common order made in S.B. Company Petition No. 4/2007 : In the matter of Peacock Industries Limited.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/ 18 122 S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO. 4/1999.
Premium Polyalloys Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Peacock Industries Limited ..
Date of Order :: 19th July 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI <<>> This Company Petition stands dismissed vide common order made in S.B. Company Petition No. 4/2007 : In the matter of Peacock Industries Limited.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/