Parallel winding-up proceedings barred when BIFR sickness and rehabilitation inquiry is already pending for the same company.

A winding-up petition based on inability to pay debts should not be entertained where the same company is already subject to a sickness reference and rehabilitation inquiry before BIFR under SICA. The pending statutory process under sections 15, 16 and 17, including investigation into sickness and possible revival, takes precedence over parallel proceedings in another forum on the same issue. Claims by the petitioner may be considered within the BIFR framework, but independent winding-up action should not proceed while that inquiry is underway.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding-up petition under the Companies Act should be entertained when proceedings concerning sickness, investigation, and possible rehabilitation of the same company are already pending before BIFR under SICA.

Analysis: The petition sought winding up on the ground of inability to pay debts. The record showed that the company had already made a reference before BIFR, that a special investigative audit had been directed, and that the statutory inquiry under SICA was in progress under sections 15, 16, and 17. Since the question whether the company should be wound up or revived was already under consideration in the BIFR proceedings, the Court held that parallel proceedings in two forums on the same issue were not proper. The Court further noted that the BIFR process would take precedence and that the petitioner's claims could be considered within that framework.

Conclusion: The winding-up petition was not entertainable and was dismissed because the matter was already pending before BIFR.

Final Conclusion: Proceedings for winding up could not proceed independently while the statutory sickness reference and rehabilitation inquiry before BIFR were pending.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company's sickness reference and related inquiry are already pending before BIFR under SICA, a parallel winding-up proceeding on the same issue should not be entertained and the BIFR process has precedence.

---