AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gita Mittal, J.—This petition was filed by M/s.Alpha Agencies, a partnership concern against M/s. Inalsa Appliances Ltd. on the ground that respondent company had failed to clear its bills of Rs. 27 lacs. The petitioner was also claiming interest on this amount.
After issuance of notice to show cause, the respondent appeared in the matter. However, proceedings herein were interdicted by the respondent by making a reference under the Sick Industries (Special Provision) Act before the BIFR.
During this time, it appears that another petition u/s 43 being Co.P. No. 128/2004 entitled D.R.Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Inalsa Appliances Ltd. came to be filed. Vide an order dated 11th April, 2008, this petition was admitted and an order appointing the provisional liquidator was passed. Thereafter a final winding up order was passed on 21st October, 2005.
In as much as the present petitioner had prayed for an order of winding up of the same company, it is evident that two orders for winding up of the same company cannot be passed. Pursuant to the orders of 21st October, 2005 passed in Co. P. No. 128/2004, the official liquidator has taken over the affairs of the company and has proceeded in the matter. It is pointed out that there has been some asset realisation also in those proceedings.
Today in Co.P.128/2004 an order has been passed for inviting the claims from the creditors of the company by way of publication in `Statesman'' (English) and `Veer Arjun'' (Hindi) for the next date of hearing.
In view of the above, it is obvious that the main prayer in this petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.
It shall be open for the petitioner to lodge its claim with the official liquidator in the pending winding up proceedings arising out of Co.P. No. 128/2004 which is pending adjudication. The official liquidator shall scrutinize the claims made by the petitioner in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders thereon.
The petitioner has made a grievance that conduct of the respondent and its ex-directors are required to be probed in view of the proceedings already passed. I find that order dated 28th July, 2008 was passed permitting Mr. Yash Puri, who is one of the partners in the petitioner company to place his grievance in the form of a tabulation, setting out the particulars of the instances and the manner in which the ex-directors of the company have purportedly taken a false stand. This tabulation was required to be filed within two weeks from the date of passing of the order. This has not been done today.
The petitioner and its partners are permitted to place tabulation in terms of the order dated 28th July, 2008 before the official liquidator within four weeks from today. The same shall be dealt with by the learned Counsel for the official liquidator, who shall place on record a status report which is to be filed in Co.P.128/2004
It is, however, made clear that nothing herein contained is an expression of opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. A copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.