(1.) This is an appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the order of the company judge dated August 31, 1990, whereby the learned-company judge ordered the appellant company to be wound up. The controversy in this appeal is a narrow one. The appellant has no grievance against the winding up of the appellant company. The appellant's grievance is only this : that the company judge should have proceeded to wind up the company under Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It would be relevant to mention here that, on June 23, 1988, the board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction passed an order recommending to this court that the appellant -company be wound up. The board sent its opinion under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the said Act. According to the appellant, the learned company judge ought to have proceeded to pass the order of winding up under sub-section (2) of Section 20 and, thereafter, is required to proceed under sub-section (3) of Section 20. The learned company judge should not have proceeded with the winding up petition filed by the respondent and passed an order for winding up of that petition. We find force in the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellant. We may reproduce Section 20 of the Act for facility of reference.
(2.) The High Court shall, on the basis of the opinion of the Board, order winding up of the sick industrial company and may proceed or cause to be proceeded with the winding up of the sick industrial company in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
(3.) For the purpose of winding up of the sick industrial company, the High Court may appoint any officer of the operating agency, If the operating agency gives its consent, as the liquidator of the sick industrial company and the officer so appointed shall for the purpose of the winding up of the sick industrial company be deemed to be, and have all the powers of, the official liquidator under the Companies Act, 1956.