S K VERMA Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Company Petition No.123 of 1989 was filed by Mr.S.K.Verma under Section 391 (1) of the COMPANIES ACT, 1956. In this petition Mr.Verma has stated that he is the shareholder of the Pioneer Consolidated Co. of India Ltd.(in liquidation) (hereinafter called `the company'). This company was incorporated on June 23,1939 under the COMPANIES ACT, 1956,1913. Another company, namely, Indian Turpentine and Rosin Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ITRC') filed a petition C.P.No.107/1981 in this court under Section 433(e) and (f) read with Section 439 of the COMPANIES ACT, 1956 seeking winding up of the company on the ground that the company owed ITRC a sum of Rs.43,57,198.31p as on 31.8.1980. The said petition was admitted and citations were ordered to be published for 6.5.1982. This order was taken in appeal and certain orders passed. However, without going into the details of further litigation, suffice it to note here that the company was ordered to be wound up by this court on 11.12.1985 and the Official Liquidator was directed to take charge of the assets and account books and documents of the company. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Division Bench of this court as well as in Supreme Court.

(2.) During the liquidation proceedings, present petition was filed in the year 1989 proposing Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement with the creditors and the members by Shri S.K.Verma, one of the shareholders. The purpose of the Scheme is stated to be (1) to take the company out of liquidation (2) to revive the functioning of the company and (3) to pay off all the creditors of the company. The transformation that would take place upon the sanctioning of the Scheme is stated in para-14 of the petition with the following description:

(3.) Notice of this petition was directed to be issued to the Central Government as well as Official Liquidator on 26.5.1989 inviting their response to the proposed scheme. The Official Liquidator filed his reply dated 5.10.1989. This one page reply contained four preliminary objections , namely: