Court denies recall of winding up order & stay, stresses timely evidence. Lack of BIFR reference proof deems grounds insufficient.

The court rejected the application to recall the winding up order and the application for stay, emphasizing the importance of timely and substantiated evidence. The court ruled that without proof of a pending reference before the BIFR at the time of the winding up order, the grounds for setting aside the order were insufficient. The judgment highlighted that even if a reference had been made, it would not impact the decision. The Official Liquidator was heard on merits, ensuring fairness to all parties involved in the insolvency proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of winding up order in light of pending reference before BIFR.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the validity of a winding up order passed on a company despite a pending reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The applicants, who were the original company ordered to be wound up, contended that the winding up order should be set aside due to the pending reference before the BIFR. The court referred to a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing that a reference before the BIFR must be scrutinized and numbered to be considered pending. The respondents argued that the applicants must provide documentary proof that their reference was scrutinized and numbered before the winding up order. The court granted time for the applicants to obtain confirmation from the BIFR in Delhi regarding the status of the reference. However, the applicants failed to provide the necessary proof within the granted time, leading the court to reject their application.

The court highlighted that without evidence of a pending reference before the BIFR as of the date of the winding up order, the grounds for setting aside the order fail. It was noted that both the BIFR and the appellate authority had dismissed the reference on the basis of incompetence, indicating that even if a reference had been made, it would not affect the decision of the High Court. Consequently, the court ruled that the application to recall the winding up order and the application for stay both failed and were dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of timely and substantiated evidence in legal proceedings, particularly in matters concerning insolvency and winding up of companies.

The judgment also briefly mentions that the Official Liquidator was heard on merits, indicating that the interests of all relevant parties were considered in the proceedings. This ensures a fair and comprehensive assessment of the legal issues involved in the case, reflecting the court's commitment to upholding justice and due process in insolvency matters.

---