Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 131 (5.92 seconds)
Documents citing International Coach Builders Ltd vs Karnataka State Financial Corpn on 5 March, 2003

A.P. State Financial Corporation, Rep. ... vs Professional Grade Components Ltd., ... on 12 September, 2003

In the instant case, after an order of winding up of the company was passed, the Corporation obtained permission of the Court to remain outside the liquidation proceedings, and having regard to the judgment of the apex Court in International Coach Builders Ltd. v. Karnataka Sate Financial Corpn., even on the date when the Corporation was permitted to remain outside the liquidation proceedings, the Corporation did not have the absolute superior right conferred upon it by Section 29 of the SFC Act over the properties hypothecated to it, for by then an order of winding up of the company had already been passed, and all the assets of the company in liquidation stood transferred to the custody of the Official Liquidator. Any superior right of the Corporation over the properties hypothecated to them, would be available to them only prior to the date of the company going into liquidation, and when once an order of winding up of a company is passed, whatever superior rights that were available to the Corporation under Section 29 of the SFC Act, became subjected to and were to operate in conjunction with the special rights given to the workmen under Sections 529 and 529-A of the Companies Act, who have pari passu charge over the properties of the company in liquidation. In that view of the matter, the Corporation cannot be allowed to contend that having regard to the power conferred upon them by Section 29 of the SFC Act, they can sell the properties hypothecated to them and appropriate the proceeds realized through the sale in their entirety for themselves nor can they be permitted to say that neither the Official Liquidator nor the secured creditors have any role to play, except to the extent of pari passu charge of the workmen over the properties of the company in liquidation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Rajasthan Financial Corpn. & Anr vs The Official Liquidator & Anr on 5 October, 2005

It was in that context that the rights of the Official Liquidator were discussed in International Coach Builders Limited (supra). The Debt Recovery Tribunal and the District court entertaining an application under Section 31 of the SFC Act should issue notice to the liquidator and hear him before ordering a sale, as the representative of the creditors in general.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 98 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

M/S.Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs M/S.Arunachalam Sugar Mills Limited on 12 April, 2011

We clarify that there is no inconsistency between the decisions in Allahabad Bank Vs. Canara Bank, (2000) 4 SCC 406 and in International Coach Builders Ltd. Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, (2003) 10 SCC 482 in respect of the applicability of Sections 529 and 529-A of the Companies Act in the matter of distribution among the creditors. The right to sell under the SFC Act or under the Recovery of Debts Act by a creditor coming within those Acts and standing outside the winding up, is different from the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the security. The distribution in a case where the debtor is a company in the process of being wound up, can only be in terms of Section 529-A read with Section 529 of the Companies Act. After all, the Liquidator represents the entire body of creditors and also holds a right on behalf of the workers to have a distribution pari passu with the secured creditors and the duty for further distribution of the proceeds on the basis of the preferences contained in Section 530 of the Companies Act under the directions of the Company Court. In other words, the distribution of the sale proceeds under the direction of the Company Court is his responsibility. To ensure the proper working out of the scheme of distribution, it is necessary to associate the Official Liquidator with the process of sale so that he can ensure, in the light of the directions of the Company Court, that a proper price is fetched for the assets of the company in liquidation. It was in that context that the rights of the Official Liquidator were discussed in International Coach Builders Ltd. (2003(10) SCC 482) The Debts Recovery Tribunal and the District Court entertaining an application under Section 31 of the SFC Act should issue notice to the Liquidator and hear him before ordering a sale, as the representative of the creditors in general.
Madras High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bakeman'S Industries P. Limited vs New Cawnpore Floor Mills And Ors. on 2 July, 2007

However, the position of law laid down in Rajasthan Financial Services Case (supra) case and International Coach Builders case (supra) are not applicable in the instant case since the order of winding up was not passed in the present case and both the above judgments are based on the premise of a situation pertaining post winding up. The order dated 17th July, 2004 does not show the presence of the Official Liquidator during the Court proceedings though his counsel Sh. S.K. Luthra did contend that though he was present, his appearance was not recorded. Further, the said case also lays down that the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the assets should be inter alia held under the supervision of the Company Court which was done in this case.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - M Mudgal - Full Document

Vaishu Engineering Industries Ltd. (In ... vs A.P. Industrial Development Corpn. on 5 June, 2006

In addition, against the order of the BIFR dated 20-1-1997, an appeal was filed before the AAIFR on 15-2-1997, and the same was pending till 15-7-1997, on which date the appeal was dismissed. By virtue of the provisions of Section 22(1) of the SICA, there is a clear prohibition from proceeding against the assets of the company, except with the consent of the Board or the appellate authority, as the case may be. Admittedly, the APIDC, which took the assets of the company, had approached the BIFR when it has come to the conclusion to pass an order, referring the matter to the High Court for being wound up. At that stage, the APIDC requested for an order to seize the assets of the company for realisation of its debt due. A specific order was passed by the BIFR, as already referred to, negativing the request and further the APIDC was directed to approach this Court for seeking permission. The APIDC, without seeking permission of either the appellate authority or this Court, seized the assets of the company deliberately, violating the express order of the BIFR, as well as the provisions of the SICA and the Act. The act of APIDC can be considered only as an attempt to overreach the specific order of the BIFR as well as the provisions of both the Acts where there was a specific prohibition against the creditors to proceed against the assets of the company. At this stage it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant declaration made by this Court in Sporolac Laboratories (P.) Ltd.'s case {supra) prohibiting the sale during the pendency of the winding up proceedings:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Haryana Financial Corporation vs The Official Liquidator And Ors. on 3 July, 2007

We clarify that there is no inconsistency between the decision in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and in International Coach Builders Ltd. v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, in respect of the applicability of Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act in the matter of distribution among the creditors. The right to sell under the SFC Act or under the Recovery of Debts Act by a creditor coming within those Acts and standing outside the winding up, is different from the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the security. The distribution in a case where the debtor is a company in the process of being wound up, can only be in terms of Section 529A read with Section 529 of the Companies Act. After all, the Liquidator represents the entire body of creditors and also holds a right on behalf of the workers to have a distribution pari passu with the secured creditors and the duty for further distribution of the proceeds on the basis of the preferences contained in Section 530 of the Companies Act under the directions of the Company Court. In other words, the distribution of the sale proceeds under the direction of the Company Court is his responsibility. To ensure the proper working out of the scheme of distribution, it is necessary to associate the Official Liquidator with the process of sale so that he can ensure, in the light of the directions of the Company Court, that a proper price is fetched for the assets of the Company-in-Liquidation. It was in that context that the rights of the Official Liquidator were discussed in International Coach Builders Ltd. The Debts Recovery Tribunal and the District Court entertaining an application under Section 31 of the SFC Act should issue notice to the Liquidator and hear him before ordering a sale, as the representative of the creditors in general.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S K Mittal - Full Document

Subhash Kathuria vs M/S.Deve Sugars Limited on 3 March, 2009

PARA:21:In this connection learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in Allahabad Bank -vs- Canara Bank [(2000) 4 SCC 406.] In the aforesaid decision this court observed that the word proceedings in Section 31 of RDB Act includes execution proceedings pending before a civil Court before the commencement of the Act. In para 50 of the aforesaid decision this Court observed that the RDB Act, 1993 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Debts Recovery Tribunal both at the stage of adjudication of the claim under Section 17 of the Act as well as execution of the claim. The Court observed that the provisions of the RDB Act, 1993 are to an extent inconsistent with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and the latter Act has to yield to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and the latter Act has to yield to the provisions of the former. This position holds goods during the pendency of the winding up petition against the debtor company and also after a winding up order is passed. The Court further held that no leave of the Company Court is necessary under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 for initiating or continuing the proceedings under the RDB Act, 1993. PARA-22:In the aforsaid decision this Court also upheld the view of some of the High Courts that the Companies Act is a general statute, and hence the RDB Act which is a special Act, overrides the general statute. At any event, in view of Section 34 of the RDB Act, the said Act will prevail to the extent of inconsistency over the Companies Act. PARA-23:Since the aforesaid decision this Court has held that even with regard to execution the jurisdiction under the RDB Act is exclusive, we cannot agree with the view taken by the High Court merely because the appellant had given his consent to the transfer of the execution petition to the Tribunal. It is well-settled in law that consent cannot confer jurisdiction. PARA:26:Learned counsel for the respondent-bank relied on Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, which states that when a winding up order is passed or the official liquidator is appointed as a provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of winding up order, shall be proceeded with against the company, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose. PARA:27:Learned counsel for respondent-bank relied on sub-section (3) of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 which states:
Madras High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 4 - S Rajeswaran - Full Document

Dinesh Gaur vs Derby Textiles Ltd. Through Director on 27 July, 2022

It was in that context that the rights of the Official Liquidator were discussed in International Coach Builders Limited (supra). The Debt Recovery Tribunal and the District court entertaining an application under Section 31 of the SFC Act should issue notice to the liquidator and hear him before ordering a sale, as the representative of the creditors in general."
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next