2019 (12) TMI 194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osed of. CO.APP. 24/2019 and C.M. No. 50116/2019 1. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, who is the petitioner in the Company Petition No. 518/2018 preferred to seek winding up of the respondent No.1 company has put in appearance. He has made a statement that respondent No. 3 has no objection to and, in fact, supports the application made by the appellant - the secured creditor, for transfer of the company petition to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The petition is, however, opposed by the Official Liquidator (OL), which we find a little curious. 2. The OL really should have no interest in seeking to retain its control over the company under liquidation since, supposedly, it has no pecuniary interest in the matter. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Code, 2016, rights of the workmen are protected only in respect of the period of 24 months preceding the commencement of the liquidation process under Section 53(1)(b). 6. The issue raised by Ms. Sindhwani is, firstly, academic at this stage, as no workman has raised any such issue. The said issue could arise for consideration only at the behest of the workmen and that too at the appropriate stage, which has still not arisen in the present case as the valuable assets of the company under liquidation have not yet been sold. In fact, once the matter stands transferred to the NCLT, it is not even certain whether the respondent company would, at all be liquidated and wound up. Even otherwise, we find that the rights of the workmen are prot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Judge proceeded on the basis that the appointment of the IPR had been stayed by the NCLAT on 30.04.2019. The NCLAT stayed the appointment of the IRP on the ground that the Liquidator had already been appointed in the Company Petition. 8. For that reason, the learned Company Judge rejected the application for impleadment and transfer moved by the appellant secured creditor herein. Ms. Sindhwani has herself pointed that in the meantime, the stay granted by the NCLAT on30.04.2019 stands vacated vide Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 465 of 2019 decided on 25.11.2019. Therefore, the very foundation of the impugned order passed by the learned Company Judge stands destroyed. Even otherwise, the impugned order is in the teeth of our order in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of two assets of the company under liquidation in the present case. The first is the factory premises with the constructed building and plant and machinery installed therein. Possession of the same was taken over on 18.08.2018. She submits that the need for security was assessed by the OL at 9 guards in 3 shifts of 8 hours each, out of which 1 guard posted in the night shift is an armed guard. Thus, 27 guards are employed to safeguard the factory premises, building and the plant and machinery, out of which 1 guard in the night shift is an armed guard. She submits that the office premises of the company under liquidation was also taken possession on 01.09.2018, where 1 guard is posted round the clock and, therefore, 3 guards are employed ....