KOMAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Vs. ROXY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CAs. 4096, 4097/89 and CA 653/90. The circumstances under which these applications have been filed are in brief as follows :- Three winding up petitions being CP 80/86, CP 30/87 and CP 149/87 have been filed seeking the winding up of the respondent company. The petitioning creditor in these three petitions are different but the company of which the winding up is sought is the same, namely, M/s. Roxy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). CP 80/86 was filed in April 1986, CP 30/87 was filed in December 1986 and CP 149/87 was filed in August 1987. In all these petitions notices were issued to the respondent to show cause why the petition be not admitted. CP 80/86 was, however admitted by orders made on 1st October 1986 but the orders for advertisement of the petition were deferred. In CP 30/87 on 2nd August 1989 Sh. S L. Nagpal and Sh. Sanjay Nagpal being father and son respectively filed CAs 4096 and 4097 of 1987. These applicants were directors and shareholders of the company. The other shareholders are claimed to be their family mernbers CA 4096/89 is accompanied with a tentative scheme of arrangement/compromise under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. The prayer in the application is that the Scheme of Arrangement sponsored by the applicants is highly beneficial to the interest of the creditors at large and that the Scheme be put to vote to all classes of creditors and necessary summons for directions be given as to issue and publication of notices and convening of meetings of both classes of creditors, namely, secured and unsecured. The only secured creditor is State Bank of India. By CA 4097/89 the applicants have sought stay of various suits and winding up petitions pending approval/sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement. Para 12 (a) of CA 4(97/89 sets out suits and legal proceedings and the winding up petitions pending against the company as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_40_DRJSUPP1_1991Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) . By an ex-parte order made on 3rd August 1989 by S.N. Sapra, J. the notice was directed to be issued on CAs. 4096 and 4097/87 and in the meanwhile, the proceedings in Suit No. 2003/85 entitled blaic Bank of India vs. Roxy Enterprises (P) Ltd, Suit No. 512/88 M/s. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. Roxy Enterprises (P) Ltd and Suit No. 80l/86 M/s. Usha Martin Industries vs. Roxy Enter rises (P) Ltd pending in this court were ordered to be stayed.

(3.) . The Stale Bank of India has filed affldavit opposing the prayers made in the applications referred to above. It has been, inter alia, contended in the affidavit that the Scheme has been propounded merely to delay the proceedings in various suits and in particular Suit No. 2003/85 filed by the State Bank of India against the company for recovery of Rs. 1,53,38,10.14 which amount would now work out to be more than Rs. 2.40 crores. Likewise the petitioning creditors of CP 80/86 ana 149/87 have also filed replies/affidavits opposing the prayer made in the application propounding the Scheme. Affidavit has also been filed on behalf ot M/s. Bharat Aluminium Co. being plaintiff of Suit No. 51./88 objecting to the reliefs clarmed by the company. The petitioning creditor ofCP 30/87 has also filed reply opposing the prayer made in the two applicalions filed by Nagpals. Duning the course of hearing counsel for the applicant inforimed the court that Sh. SL. Nagpal has since died but submitted that bis legal heirs are interested in pursuing the applications. I proceed on the assumptior that the legal representation of Sh. S L Nagpal are also interested in propounding the Scheme filed in CA 4096/89.