TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it continues to subsist till it is revoked or recalled. 2. Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that all the dues of the petitioner were settled by the company under winding up and there were no creditors to whom any accounts were due by the company under winding up. The petitioner had therefore to be permitted to withdraw the petition followed by an order of discharge of the Official Liquidator. Shri S.P. Munj, learned Advocate for the creditor EDC Ltd. submitted that all their dues were settled and therefore they had no objection for the recall of the winding up order and for the withdrawal of the petition. Shri S.N. Joshi, learned Advocate for the State Bank of India similarly submitted that all the dues of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terial on record to justify the recall of the order for winding up. 4. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Advocate for the company under winding up submitted that Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 applied only where the creditors/workers were before the Court which was not the case presently. Besides, no order of winding up was made despite the order of this Court dated 26/06/2009. Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for the petitioner in reply submitted that the judgment in Meghal Homes (P.) Ltd. (supra) was clearly distinguishable, that Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not apply to the present case and besides there were only two creditors namely EDC and the State Bank of India which were settled by the Scheme of Redemption. Moreove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught for permission to withdraw the petition while Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel for the respondent sought to recall the winding up order and for the discharge of the Official Liquidator as nothing further survived in the proceedings. 7. Omprakash J. Mehra (supra), sought for the recall of the winding up order passed by this Court and for the dismissal of the petition. It was in that context that reliance was placed in Sudarshan Chits (I) Ltd. v. O. Sukumaran Pillai [1984] 4 SCC 657 in which the Apex Court had considered the scope and purpose of Section 446 (2) of the Companies Act in the following terms :- ".... It is now well-settled that a winding-up order once made can be revoked or recalled but till it is revoked or recalled it co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and other interested persons to consider a scheme proposed allegedly for the revival of the company. The application was opposed. The Company Court directed the convening of the requisite meeting to consider the proposed scheme and pending consideration thereof, the Company Court also withheld the proceedings pursuant to the public notice inviting offers. 9. In Meghal Homes (P.) Ltd. (supra), the order of the Company Court directing the convening of a meeting for the purpose of considering the scheme propounded was challenged in appeal by the workers' union and three of the parties who had submitted their offers in response to the advertisement issued by the Official Liquidator pursuant to the direction of the Company Court dated 1/09/19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Bank of India apart from the petitioner and none else. Therefore the contention of Ms. A. Razaq that Omprakash J. Mehra (supra) did not deal with the revival of the company would therefore not buttress her case in the factual matrix. 10. Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. (supra) and Bengal Immunity Ltd. (supra) were in the context of the applicability of Section 391 of the Act which apparently does not apply to the case at hand. Hence, the departure. In Goa Enterprises (supra), the applicant had prayed for a recall of the order dated 21/03/2013 passed in the Company Petition which had been admitted and the petitioner had been directed to advertise the petition in terms of the rules. The respondent vehemently opposed the application ....