https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354444 The Kerala HC held that repeal of SICA did not terminate pending BIFR-referred winding up matters, because the repealing statute and the saving framework preserved such proceedings and the amended Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 could not displace the continuation clause in Rule 5(2). It further found that the company should be wound up because rehabilitation efforts had failed, no viable fresh revival scheme was pending, and the record showed that continued existence was not sustainable. The winding up reference was therefore allowed and the company directed to be liquidated. en-us Thu, 02 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jan 2018 08:16:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354444 The Kerala HC held that repeal of SICA did not terminate pending BIFR-referred winding up matters, because the repealing statute and the saving framework preserved such proceedings and the amended Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 could not displace the continuation clause in Rule 5(2). It further found that the company should be wound up because rehabilitation efforts had failed, no viable fresh revival scheme was pending, and the record showed that continued existence was not sustainable. The winding up reference was therefore allowed and the company directed to be liquidated. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 02 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354444