TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (10) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondents. JUDGMENT Reddy, J. - O.S. Appeal No. 45 of 1999 is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 6-8-1998 winding up the appellant company. The other appeal, viz., OSA 41 of 1999 is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 30-7-1999 refusing to set aside the order of winding up which was passed ex parte. The respondent herein who is an unsecured credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has come to know of the order only after the official liquidator took possession of the assets of the company. It is not in dispute that the debt due to the petitioning creditor, viz., respondent herein, has been discharged. The first respondent's counsel affirms this fact before us and submits that the respondent is no longer interested in winding up the company. However, the learned Single Jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....poration of India, the Industrial Finance Corporation of India and the State Bank of India. Notices have been served accordingly. None appears for the State Bank. However, it is brought to our notice that during the pendency of the petition before the learned Single Judge, the Bank filed an affidavit stating that the Bank was not interested in the winding up of the company. The other three financi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ructify, and if it is found by BIFR that the revival is not feasible, or the industry has reached a state of non-viability, the BIFR can, at appropriate stage, after due consideration, suggest winding up of the company. That is all the reason why this court should refrain from ordering winding up at this juncture when, there is no objection from any of the creditors and there could possibly be no ....