TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Winding-up petition admitted despite restructuring proposal, Provisional Liquidator appointed</h1> <h3>THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPROATION LTD Versus M/s SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD</h3> THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPROATION LTD Versus M/s SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD - TMI Issues:1. Petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 for unpaid financial facilities.2. Dispute over restructuring proposal under CDR mechanism.3. Application for appointment of Provisional Liquidator and management of company assets.Issue 1: The petition was filed under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging non-payment of financial facilities by the respondent despite a notice served. The respondent acknowledged the amounts due but argued for a restructuring proposal under the CDR mechanism pending with a consortium of banks. The court found the respondent unable to discharge its debts, admitting the winding-up petition. The court held that the restructuring proposal did not bar the petitioner from maintaining the petition, leading to the admission of the petition and directing advertisement for hearing.Issue 2: The respondent's proposal for restructuring its liabilities did not prevent the admission of the winding-up petition. The court rejected the defense based on an inter se agreement between various banks, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement to maintain the petition. The court directed the petitioner to issue advertisements for the winding-up hearing despite the restructuring proposal under consideration by other secured creditors.Issue 3: An application was made for the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator due to the respondent's temporary inability to repay debts. The court allowed the respondent to continue efforts to discharge creditors but ordered the Official Liquidator to take charge of movable stock to prevent misappropriation. Details of warehouses storing stock were provided, and the respondent was directed to disclose inventory details and realizable value. The directors were instructed to file a Statement of Affairs and provide correct addresses, with continued operation of bank accounts under Official Liquidator's oversight. The respondent was given liberty to pursue proposals with banks and settle with creditors, with the application disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
