Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.68 seconds)

Psl Limited vs Jotun India Pvt. Ltd on 5 January, 2018

procedure it may follow for conducting an inquiry under Section 16(1) and nothing more. In fact, once the reference is registered after scrutiny, it is, in our view, mandatory for the BIFR to conduct an inquiry. If one looks at the format of the reference as prescribed in the Regulations, it will be clear that it contains more than fifty columns regarding extensive financial details of the Company's assets, liabilities, etc. Indeed, it will be practically impossible for the BIFR to reject a reference outright without calling for information/documents or without hearing the Company or other parties. Further, the Act is intended to revive and rehabilitate sick industries before they can be wound up under the Companies Act, 1956. Whether the Company seeks a declaration that it is sick or some other body seeks to have it declared as a sick Company, it is, in our opinion, necessary that the Company be heard before any final decision is taken under the Act. It is also the legislative intention to see mat no proceedings against file assets are taken before any such decision is given by the BIFR for in the case the Company's assets are sold, or the company wound up it may indeed become difficult later to restore the status quo ante. Therefore, in our view, the High Court of Allahabad in Industrial Finance Corporation v. Maharashtra Steels Ltd., AIR1988All170 , the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sponge Iron India Ltd. v. Neelima Steels Ltd., the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Orissa Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Rishab Ispat Ltd., (1993) 78 Comp. Cas 264 are right in rejecting such a contention and in holding that the inquiry must be treated as having commenced as soon as the registration of the reference is completed after scrutiny and that from that time, action against the Company's assets must remain stayed as stated in section 22 till final decisions are taken by the BIFR.
Bombay High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 7 - K R Shriram - Full Document

M/S Tecpro Systems Ltd & Anr vs Rajan Khandelwal on 20 February, 2018

Further, the Act is intended to revive and rehabilitate sick industries before they can be wound up under the Companies Act, 1956. Whether the Company seeks a declaration that it is sick or some other body seeks to have it declared as a sick Company, it is, in our opinion, necessary that the Company be heard before any final decision is taken under the Act. It is also the legislative intention to see that no proceedings against the assets are taken before any such decision is given by the BIFR for in the case the Company's assets are sold, or the company wound up it may indeed become difficult later to restore the status quo ante. Therefore, in 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2018 14:54:19 ::: CR Nos.2628 and 2629 of 2017 (O&M) -9- our view, the High Court of Allahabad in Industrial Finance Corporation vs. Maharashtra Steels Ltd. [1990 67 Comp.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

M/S Modi Rubber Ltd vs Ram S. Dubey on 14 August, 2024

Further, the Act is intended to revive and rehabilitate sick industries before they can be wound up under the Companies Act, 1956. Whether the Company seeks a declaration that it is sick or some other body seeks to have it declared as a sick Company, it is, in our opinion, necessary that the Company be heard before any final 5 CFA 22 of 2010 decision is taken under the Act. It is also the legislative intention to see that no proceedings against the assets are taken before any such decision is given by the BIFr for in the case the Company's assets are sold, or the company wound up it may indeed become difficult later to restore the status quo ante. Therefore, in our view, the High Court of Allahabad in Industrial Finance Corporation vs. Maharashtra Steels Ltd. [1990 67 Comp.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V C Koul - Full Document
1