SAHU JAIN LTD Vs. ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act has been preferred against the order dated 2nd of February, 2001 passed by the Company Judge, in Company Petition No. 3 of 1984 under Item No. (IX).

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in the year 1984 a winding -up petition was filed before this Court which was numbered as Company Petition No. 3 of 1984. Prior to the institution of the winding -up proceeding, the State Bank of India and the United Bank of India granted certain credit facility to the Company namely, M/s Rohtas Industries Limited. The two Banks filed separate suits for recovery of amount outstanding against M/s Rohtas Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") in which the appellant herein i.e. M/s. Sahu Jain Limited being the guarantor was impleaded as the defendant. By an order dated 22nd May, 1986 the Company Judge passed order directing winding -up the Company. During the pendency of the winding -up proceeding the workmen of the Company resorted to a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court. By order dated 24.10.1989, the Supreme Court stayed the winding -up order passed by the Company Judge dated 22nd May, 1986 and directed the State of Bihar to appoint an officer from amongst the members of the Indian Administrative Service as Administrator of the Company. The Administrator so appointed was directed to constitute a committee to examine the claims of various parties including the Banks and financial institutions. In the light of the aforesaid order, a Claim Committee was constituted which issued notice and in response thereof the State Bank of India and the United Bank of India filed their claim before the said Committee. The Supreme Court in the petition filed by the workmen made attempt to revive the Company but ultimately, found it difficult to do and passed order on 18.10.1995 disposing of the writ petition with a direction that the winding -up proceeding be resumed by the Company Judge.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the appellant preferred LPA No. 1293 of 1998 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 24th March, 2000, set aside the order of the Company Judge dated 30th October, 1998 and remitted the matter back before it for reconsideration in accordance with law. It is relevant here to state that the Division Bench while remitting the matter back to the Company Judge observed that the order passed by the Company Judge, dated 30th of October, 1998 is an appellable order under Section 483 of the Companies Act but no objection having been taken, the appeal was decided as a Letters Patent Appeal.