1999 (3) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Petitioners to the company. 3. It was the case of the company that the suit had been filed against the company for recovery of the outstanding dues. Since, 1989 the company is not carrying on its business activities and has become totally impractical for the respondent-company to function smoothly for reasons set out in the Petition. On 20-7-1994 both movable and immovable properties of the company were sold by the Court receiver. The company approached BIFR on 1-3-1988. On 13-6-1989 BIFR passed an order holding that it was not possible to revive the company and consequently the company should be wound up. On 27-5-1991, an Appeal was preferred against the said Order before AAIFR. The said Appeal was dismissed. A Writ Petition has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before the High Court of Delhi. The writ petition was admitted and pending hearing of the interim application, an interim order was granted on 21-2-1991 staying operation of the order of AAIFR. The company during the pendency of the said order was ordered to be wound up by the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by order dated 14-8-1991. One of the questions that arose before the Apex Court was as under :- "What is the effect of the order passed by the Delhi High Court dated February 21, 1991, staying the operation of the order dated January 7, 1991, passed by the Appellate Authority ? Does it mean that, after the passing of the said order by the High Court, the proceedings under the Act should be treated as pending and, if so, bef....