Silver Screen Magnetic Diagnostics Limited and Another vs Daljit Singh Ex-Director and Others

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been preferred u/s 483 of the Companies Act,1956 against the orders of learned Company Judge dated 8.5.2009 and 10.2.2010.

M/s Silver Screen Magnetic Diagnostics Limited was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. On an application by secured creditors, the company was ordered to be wound up under Sections 433/434 of the Act for inability to pay its debts. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed to take charge of the company. Respondent No. 1-Daljit Singh, Ex-Director of the Company filed an application before the Company Judge seeking permission to approach the Appellant and PSIDC, which are financial corporations within the meaning of The State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, (SFC Act) who were both secured creditors to liquidate the outstanding loans in terms of One Time Settlement scheme floated by the said creditors. Having regard to the fact that an order had already been passed for sale of the property by the Appellant on 12.10.2006, learned Company Judge allowed the application. It was observed that if there was any deficiency in the amount realised from the sale of the property which had already been ordered to be sold, the applicant will make good the same.

The Appellant filed an application seeking modification of the order on the ground that the One Time Settlement did not envisage sale of the property by the financial institutions, and therefore, One Time Settlement proposal of Respondent No. 1 should not contain any such condition. Learned Company Judge dismissed the said application vide order dated 10.2.2010 with the observation that the condition for sale of the property by the financial institutions was in the interest of justice.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the order dated 8.5.2009 was passed without any notice to the Appellant and learned Company Judge was not justified in requiring the Appellant to sell the property.

We do not find any merit in the submission. Order dated 8.5.2009 noticed that the Appellant had been permitted to sell the property on 12.10.2006 to realise its dues as the company is in liquidation. We do not find any reason for the Appellant to object to the property being sold by it when an order has already been passed to that effect at its own instance. Admittedly, the Appellant has taken over the property u/s 29 of the SFC Act, 1951. No prejudice is caused to the Appellant by sale of the property. In fact sale of the property by the Appellant ensures that the best price is secured and legitimate dues of the Appellant are paid. We thus do not find any ground to interfere.

The appeal is dismissed.