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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the company should be wound up on the creditors' petitions and whether the court should direct appointment of the official liquidator with full powers.
Analysis: The company had no operational manufacturing activity, had failed for a prolonged period to place any credible repayment plan before the court, and could not show any realistic prospect of meeting its massive debts. The admitted arrears of creditors, workmen, employees and statutory authorities, together with the absence of annual accounts and the company's inability to disclose the source of funds for proposed payments, established inability to pay debts. The court also relied on the surrounding circumstances of large-scale alienation of valuable immovable properties for negligible consideration, the dubious revaluation of assets to exit BIFR protection, and the resulting prejudice to creditors, workmen and other stakeholders. In that backdrop, the conduct of management, the absence of opposition from any represented creditor, and the just and equitable considerations justified winding up.
Conclusion: The company was directed to be wound up, and the official liquidator was to take charge of the company and its assets with steps to recover the alienated properties and pursue further proceedings as necessary.