TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel Sri J.Srinadha Reddy for the respondent no.2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the Company Petition. 2. According to the petitioner, respondent is incorporated as a Company under the Companies Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act'). Petitioner supplied iron and steel worth ­ 23,99,910/- to the respondent under a running credit account. The respondent defaulted in payments. On 03.07.2013, notice was issued by petitioner calling upon the respondent to pay sum of ­ 34,17,917/-. The said notice was returned with endorsement 'not claimed returned to sender'. In those circumstances, petitioner filed Company Petition No.50 of 2014. 3. In C.P. No. 50 of 2014, notices sent to respondent returned unserved. Court permitted the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Company Petition. As there was no notice, it cannot be said that respondent was avoiding to appear before this Court. He would further submit that the documents marked on behalf of petitioner do not constitute evidence of proof of insolvency. Company has sufficient means to handle its obligations. 6. He would submit that petitioner and respondent have entered into Memorandum of Understanding on 19.03.2021, where under the inter se dispute was amicably settled and entire dues were paid. The petitioner also filed Memo vide USR No.41508 of 2022 dated 29.04.2022 in proof of resolution of dispute. He therefore prays to set aside the ex parte order. 7. It is further contended that the amount borrowed from Union Bank of India was also clear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bank took physical possession of secured asset in the year 2015. Though several times auction was conducted, no one evinced interest to buy the secured asset. In the year 2019, OTS was agreed for ­ 7.60 crores and borrower company paid entire amount. 12. This information furnished by Union Bank of India tallies with the assertion of the respondent-company. The averments also make it clear that for the last seven years the Official Liquidator is unable to secure the assets and books of the respondent-company. Except issuing notices now and then, he has not taken concrete steps to implement the orders of this Court. Insofar as Official Liquidator is concerned, matter stands as it was. 13. However, two important developments required....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the Official Liquidator. The assets become custodia legis. The follow-up, in the absence of a revival of the company, is the realisation of the assets of the company by the Official Liquidator and distribution of the proceeds to the creditors, workers and contributories of the company ultimately resulting in the death of the company by an order under Section 481 of the Act, being passed. But, nothing stands in the way of the Company Court, before the ultimate step is taken or before the assets are disposed of, to accept a scheme or proposal for revival of the Company. In that context, the court has necessarily to see whether the scheme contemplates revival of the business of the company, makes provisions for paying off creditors or fo....