Calcutta High Court
Precision Engineering And Fabricators ... vs Unknown on 18 May, 2018
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
OD-14
ORDER SHEET
CA 90 OF 2018
CP 487 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Original Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
IN THE MATTER OF :
PRECISION ENGINEERING AND FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED
(IN LIQUIDATION)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF :
DADHIBHAL SHAW
VERSUS
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF :
GURDEEP SINGH SAHNI
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Date : 18th May, 2018.
Appearance Mr. Raj Ratna Sen, Adv.
Mr. Sidharta Basu, Adv.
Mr. Pramod K. Bagaria, Adv.
... for the petitioning creditor Mr. S.R. Kakrani, Adv.
... for P.C. Chanda and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Adv.
Mr. R. Upadhyay, Adv.
... for Company Mr. Tushar Saraogi (in person) ... for Atul Enterprises Ms. Debjani Mitra, Adv.
...for Official Liquidator 2 The Court : This is an application for stay of the Order dated 7th February, 2018 whereby the Company, Precision Engineering & Fabricators Private Limited, was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator was directed to take possession of the assets of the Company.
The winding up petition pending before this Court was admitted by an Order dated 23rd March, 2017 and advertisements were published in newspaper pursuant to such Order. Pursuant to such advertisements, the creditors, namely, Atul Enterprises and P.C. Chanda and Company Private Limited appeared before this Court in support of winding up proceedings. These two creditors were directed to file affidavits and the petitioning creditor also filed an affidavit. An order dated 25th June, 2017 confirms that besides these two creditors no one else responded to the advertisements published. By an Order dated 4th April, 2017, the Company was referred under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and a resolution plan was made for revival of the Company.
Counsel appearing for the parties submit that the Company has got in touch with the petitioning creditor and has agreed to repay the entire amount due to the petitioning creditor on terms outlined in paragraph 14 of the petition and recorded in a scheme for such settlement annexed at annexure 'D' to the supplementary affidavit affirmed by the Company on 27th April, 2018.
Counsel agree to have the Order dated 7th February, 2018 recalled on the basis of such terms as agreed upon by the Company, the petitioning creditor and two other creditor who are represented in Court today. It is submitted that all the creditors have been taken care of in the terms of settlement.
The Official Liquidator is present in Court today and submits that a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- has been spent for deployment of security guards in the registered office of the Company. She also prays for legal expenses amounting to Rs. 20,000/- 3
Counsel appearing for the Company assures that the said amounts will be made over to the Official Liquidator within seven days from date. Counsel appearing for P.C. Chanda and Company Private Limited submits that there is a small difference between the amounts indicated in the scheme and the principal amount claimed from the Company which may be settled by the Company. He also submits that whatever directions may be passed by this Court ought to be subject to the Company honouring its commitments towards payments and in the event of default, the Order dated 7th February, 2018 should revive.
The Company hands over a cheque of the first installment payable by the Company to the petitioning creditor as well as the supporting creditor by way of a demand draft in Court today.
Let CA 90 of 2018 be disposed of in terms of prayer (a) of the Judge's Summons. This order is made subject to the Company honouring its payment obligations as agreed to between the parties in the scheme of settlement.
As pointed out by the supporting creditor, let the next installment be paid by the Company within 15 June, 2018.
The Company will have all rights available to it which it may be entitled to upon the order of winding up being recalled.
Affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioning creditor is kept with the record.
(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) RS