TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an application under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was maintainable even though no winding-up order had yet been made and the company was under a relief undertaking notification and an interim restraint order; (ii) whether the post-petition hypothecation, mortgage and rehabilitation financing transactions in favour of the secured banker and other financial institutions were bona fide and liable to be validated under section 536(2).
Issue (i): Whether an application under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was maintainable even though no winding-up order had yet been made and the company was under a relief undertaking notification and an interim restraint order.
Analysis: The power under section 536(2) is available in a pending winding-up proceeding, and prior authority of the Court had already recognised that such an application can be entertained even before a winding-up order is formally passed. The relief undertaking notifications did not bar the company from approaching the Court for validation of transactions, and the interim order in the connected writ proceedings did not cover the earlier transactions already entered into. The later documents required for rehabilitation would, if necessary, still be subject to the appropriate permission in the connected proceedings, but that did not prevent consideration of the present applications.
Conclusion: The preliminary objections to maintainability were overruled.
Issue (ii): Whether the post-petition hypothecation, mortgage and rehabilitation financing transactions in favour of the secured banker and other financial institutions were bona fide and liable to be validated under section 536(2).
Analysis: The governing principle is that the Court may validate a disposition if, on the surrounding circumstances, it is satisfied that the transaction was honest, necessary or expedient in the interests of the company, and aimed at preserving the company as a going concern. The disputed transactions were entered into when the mill was still functioning, though under acute financial stress, and the overrun and additional securities were linked to continued working capital support, rehabilitation finance and revival of the undertaking. The transactions were not shown to be sham or mala fide, and the Court also noted that alleged misconduct by directors or bank officers would remain open to independent proceedings and did not defeat validation of the corporate transactions themselves.
Conclusion: The transactions were held to be bona fide and valid, and the Court directed validation under section 536(2) in favour of the company and the financing institutions.
Final Conclusion: The company was permitted to regularise the post-petition financing and security arrangements so that the undertaking could continue as a going concern and pursue rehabilitation, while leaving questions of personal misconduct to appropriate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, the company court may validate post-petition dispositions if they are bona fide, entered into in the ordinary course of business, and necessary or expedient for preserving the company as a going concern.
TaxTMI 
