ASSOTECH LTD. Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH BHALLA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Orders dated February 08, 2016, February 26, 2016, March 23, 2016, April 21, 2016, May 05, 2016 and August 08, 2016 passed by the learned Company Judge are impugned in the instant appeal.

(2.) Taking cognizance of five company petitions seeking winding up of the appellant, the learned Company Judge noted that cheques issued by the company totalling more than Rs. 4 crores given to the five petitioners had been dishonoured. An FIR had been registered for offences of cheating and misappropriation against the Managing Director of the company by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police. The first Company Petition No.357/2015 was admitted. The Official Liquidator attached to the court was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. The Directors of the company were directed to file the statement of affairs within 21 days.

(3.) CA No.748/2016 was filed by the appellant in which prayer made was to keep in abeyance the order dated February 08, 2016 with further prayer that the Official Liquidator be directed to de-seal the office premises of the appellant. It was pleaded in the application that the appellant had finalized a deal for sale of one its immovable property to generate funds to meet immediate requirements of the creditors. The said application was listed before the learned Company Judge on February 26, 2016 and notice thereof was issued to the petitioner returnable for March 23, 2016. Another Company Application No.1043/2016 came to be filed and along with the previous applications was listed before the learned Company Judge on March 23, 2016. The learned Judge noted that as per the application on November 02, 2016 a written agreement was entered into between the petitioner of CP No.357/2015 and the appellant company. The learned Company Judge noted that there were a large number of creditors of the appellant and thus a piecemeal approach qua a few creditors would not be the appropriate course of action to be permitted by the Court to be adopted by the appellant. The learned Company Judge recorded in the order : 'Having regard to the above, it is quite clear that the applicant/respondent may have to formulate a scheme of compromise/arrangement with the creditors, which will not only involve the claim of the non-applicant/petitioner in the accompanying company petition but in other petitions as well that are also listed on the board today as item Nos. 1,2,3,5 and 6, being : CP Nos. 357/2015, 362/2015, 363/2015, 433/2015, 434/205, respectively'. Thereafter statement made by learned senior counsel for the appellant was recorded to the following effect 'Having regard to the above, the matter is stood over till 21.4.2016. Mr. Sikri says that he will take requisite steps in that behalf, which would include filing of an application for compromise/arrangement with the creditors, and an application, whereby, notice could be issued to the concerned secured creditors qua the immovable properties (including the aforementioned property), which the respondent/applicant seeks permission to sell in order to pay off the creditors'. The matter was re-notified for April 21, 2016. The order dated April 21, 2016 simply re-notified the proceedings to July 20, 2016. It appears certain applications seeking interim relief were filed and were listed before the learned Company Judge on May 05, 2016. Proceedings thereafter reached the date August 08, 2016. The order passed on said date records that the petitioner of CP No.357/2015 prayed for the petition filed by him, seeking winding up of the appellant, to be disposed of in terms of a settlement. The settlement concerns a flat. The learned Company Judge has recorded that the Provisional Liquidator had already been appointed and the properties of the appellant company were vested in the Official Liquidator. The learned Company Judge recorded that the Official Liquidator would ensure that all property of the company are taken possession of. Concerning the settlement in terms whereof CP No.357/2015 was desired to be disposed of by the petitioner thereof and the appellant company the learned Judge declined to accept the request.