TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nced to the 'Corporate Debtor'. 2. 'Jai Balaji Industries Limited'- ('Corporate Debtor') challenged the said proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Chattishgarh in W.P. No. (c) 699 of 2018 wherein an interim order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court preventing continuation of the proceedings under the 'I&B Code'. However, the said interim order dated 14th March, 2018 was modified. Thereafter, the Special Leave Petition against the said order of modification was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 16th July, 2018. 3. Before the Hon'ble High Court, the 'Corporate Debtor' took plea that a number of winding up petitions were pending against it. However, subsequently the Hon'ble High Court by an order clarified that this order passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall not be construed to stand in the way of hearing of the application filed by the 'State Bank of India' against the 'Corporate Debtor' under the 'I&B Code'. 4. In a petition under Section 7 (registered as C.P. (IB) No. 767/KB/2017) a number of Interlocutory Applications were filed. One of such application was filed by 'Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Contractor's & Worker's Union', another by 'Lakhot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Division Bench of this Court. By an order dated September 4, 2015 the Division Bench of this Court directed the company to deposit Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lac only) within September 11, 2015 as a condition for obtaining stay of operation of the order dated August 17, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. The company, however, did not deposit the said amount as directed by the Division Bench and the petitioner caused advertisement of the winding-up application in newspapers. Thereafter, the company filed an application, CA 133 of 2017 before a learned Single Judge of this Court praying for, inter alia, stay of further proceedings of the winding-up application and the order dated August 17, 2015. By a consent order dated April 17, 2017 a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said application CA 133 of 2017. In terms of the said consent order dated August 17, 2017 the company was to pay Rs. 3,77,88,569/- (Rupees Three Crore Seventy Seven Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Nine Only) to the petitioner. The said consent order further provided that out of the said Rs. 7,88,562/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Two Only) the com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities." 9. The aforesaid order dated 7th June, 2018 was challenged by the 'State Bank of India' before the Division Bench as direction was issued to windup the Company namely- 'Jai Balaji Industries Limited' and direction was issued on the 'Official Liquidator' to forthwith take possession of all the assets and properties of the company. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta (Original Side) by judgment dated 21st June, 2018 set aside the order dated 7th June, 2018 with following observations and directions: "................. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the promoters of the company (presently in liquidation) submitted that the said promoters have filed an application for recalling of the order dated June 07, 2018 and to submit a scheme for revival of the company (presently in liquidation). I have considered the materials on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant bank and the petitioning creditor as well. In the present case, it is a fact that when the company (presently in liquidation) failed to deposit Rs. 50,00,000/- as direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to compliance with all requisite formalities." 10. On 19th July, 2018, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta taking into consideration the submissions made by the State Bank of India made following observations and directions: ".............The State Bank as secured creditor of the company complained to the company Court that in the light of the company petition having been adjourned sine die, which deprived the other creditors of the company to have their say at the post- advertisement stage, the company Court ought to have issued some form of notice or advertisement before hearing the matter again. At any rate, the State Bank contended before the company Court, the company could not be wound up without reference to its other creditors merely because an advertisement may have been published some two or three years prior to the company being wound-up. In short, it was the allegation of the State Bank that a friendly creditor had been propped up to ensure the winding-up of the company by Court. By the order impugned, the company Court perceived that in the peculiar circumstances that the petition did not appear on the returnable date indicated in the adverti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied on 'The Companies (Court) Rules, 1959' and submitted that after advertisement of the petition an order appointing 'Provisional Liquidator' is required to be passed in Form No. 49 in terms of Rule 106(2). It is only thereafter in terms of Rule 111, in Form No. 52, winding up order is required to be passed. Thereafter, notice of winding up is required to be issued. It is stated that till date no order of winding up has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. Whatever the order of winding up earlier passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge (Company Judge) has been recalled by the Division Bench. 13. We have noticed the rival submissions of the parties, orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and perused the records. The facts as narrated and the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court clearly shows that till date the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has not passed any order of winding up/liquidation of the 'Corporate Debtor'. The Adjudicating Authority has failed to notice the aforesaid relevant orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. 14. In "Unigreen Global Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.− (2018) 145 SCL 272", this Appellate Tribu....