Full News

Company ordered to deposit principal amounts to stay liquidator's action

In a company petition was admitted and the company was directed to be wound up. In another petition, company indicated its willingness to settle with the petitioner-creditor. Company did not pay. Court ordered Official Liquidator's to take control of the company's assets. High Court ordered the company to deposit principal amounts covered by the claims of two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. -500141

1. CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission, such petition was advertised. The company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.

2. CA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. Directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival.It was observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.

3. Since no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.

4. The company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.

5. The High Court held as under:

It is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.

The company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

Company ordered to deposit principal amounts to stay liquidator's action

Write your Comment

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

<span style="font-size:100%;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}">Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015 Author: Sanjib Banerjee OD- 6 and 7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD. AND SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD. AND CP No. 10 of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD. AND KJ ISPAT LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 10th December, 2015. Appearance: Mr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv. Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Adv. Ms. Rima Das, Adv. Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Ms. Amian Abdullah, Adv. Mr. P. Jewrajka, Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv. Mr. I. P. Mullick, Adv. The Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> The company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> CA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits. When this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> When CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> It is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> Since no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores. CP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> The company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent. When CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> Today, the following creditors are before the Court:<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> (i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> (ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> (iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> (iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and, <span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}">(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> Of the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> Once a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> <span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> It is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> The company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> <span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Sreerampur Ispat Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sanjib Banerjee\nOD- 6 and 7\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n \n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n SREERAMPUR ISPAT PVT. LTD.\n AND\n CP No. 10 of 2014\n IN THE MATTER OF:\n CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.\n AND\n KJ ISPAT LTD.\n\n\n\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE\nDate : 10th December, 2015.\nAppearance:\nMr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.\nMr. Sourabh Maitra, Adv.\nMs. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.\nMs. Rima Das, Adv.\nMs. Smita Das De, Adv.\nMs. Amian Abdullah, Adv.\nMr. P. Jewrajka, Adv.\nMs. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.\nMr. I. P. Mullick, Adv.\nThe Court : CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission as directed by the relevant order, such petition was advertised. It is of significance that the order of admission of September 16, 2014 was made in the presence of the company.\nThe company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.\nCA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. The cause title refers to Section 450 of the Companies Act and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These provisions have no manner of application in an order of winding-up being permanently stayed at the behest of the company or its promoters especially when the company does not challenge the order on merits.\nWhen this application was received on September 14, 2015, directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The application next appeared on October 13, 2015 when the petitioning-creditor asserted that it had a balance principal claim of Rs.1.64 crore. Two other creditors appeared in court to oppose the prayer for staying the order of winding-up: one claiming dues in excess of Rs.13 lakh and the other claiming a sum of Rs.1.38 crore. The order also recorded that the State Bank of India had informed the Official Liquidator that it had a claim in excess of Rs.20.91 crore against the company in liquidation and that such secured creditor had initiated steps against the securities held by it.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared next on October 15, 2015, the appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival. However, since the company sought time to settle the claims of the several creditors, the matter was directed to appear on December 8, 2015. It was, in such circumstances, that the order of October 15, 2015 observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.\nIt is elementary that upon an order of winding-up being passed, the Official Liquidator is obliged to immediately take possession of all assets of the company in liquidation and take control of all its transactions. The order of admission of the creditor's petition was passed in the presence of the company. The company deliberately stayed away at the post-advertisement stage and suffered an order of winding-up. The company did not seek to question the order of winding-up on merits, as such measure could not have been taken under Section 466 of the Act where the applicant has to accept the order of winding-up and cite grounds for the same to be stayed, primarily, that the company would be able to revive and run as a successful commercial venture.\nSince no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.\nCP No.10 of 2014 was admitted on July 22, 2014 for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/- together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum from July 1, 2013. Upon the company's failure to make payment of the amount recognised by the order of admission, the petition was advertised. However, before CP No.10 of 2014 could progress to an order of winding-up being made thereon, the company was wound up in CP No.771 of 2013. When CP No.10 of 2014 appeared at the post-advertisement stage on August 3, 2015, such petition was disposed of in view of the company having been wound up by then; but the petitioning creditor in CP No.10 of 2014 was given the liberty to mention the petition for its revival in the event that the order of winding-up was recalled or stayed.\nThe company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.\nWhen CA No.566 of 2015 appeared on its scheduled date of December 8, 2015 before the Company Court, the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 intervened in the proceedings and such petition was revived since the appellate order of November 19, 2015 virtually stayed the order of winding-up of July 24, 2015.\nToday, the following creditors are before the Court:\n(i) The petitioning creditor in CP No.771 of 2013 with a balance claim in excess of Rs.1.43 crore;\n(ii) The petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 with a principal claim in excess of Rs.21.42 lakh;\n(iii) Cracker India Alloys Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.13 lakh;\n(iv) Shree Jagnnath Metallic Industries Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.1.38 crore; and,\n(v) Virajaa Steel and Power Private Limited with a principal claim in excess of Rs.20.45 lakh.\nOf the supporting creditors appearing in Court today, Virajaa has filed an affidavit in support of its claim which the company has chosen not to deal with yet. The two other supporting creditors should file the affidavits in support of their claims within a week from date. The company will be afforded a week thereafter to file its affidavit dealing with such claims, subject to the company complying with the direction indicated hereafter.\nOnce a creditor's winding-up petition has been advertised, the matter assumes a representative character and it is no longer permissible for the company to pick and choose to pay any creditor ahead of the others. The principle applies with greater force once the company has gone into liquidation. When the company seeks the permanent stay of an order of winding-up, it has to make provision for payment to all its creditors; or, at any rate to the creditors who oppose the stay of the order of winding-up. In this case, the company cannot question the claims of the petitioner in CP No.771 of 2013 or the petitioner in CP No.10 of 2014 since such claims have been adjudicated upon.\nIt is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.\nThe company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.\nUrgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.\n(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc./bp.

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

1. CP No.771 of 2013 was admitted for a sum of Rs.1,84,75,646/- together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from October 29, 2013 by an order of September 16, 2014. Upon the company not discharging the payment within four weeks of the order of admission, such petition was advertised. The company was not represented at the post-advertisement stage and despite directions being issued for filing affidavits at the post-advertisement stage, the company chose not to be represented when the matter was taken up on July 24, 2015. The company was directed to be wound up on such date.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{" 1":2,"2":"1="" cp="" no.771="" of="" 2013="" was="" admitted="" for="" a="" sum="" rs.1,84,75,646="" -="" together="" with="" interest="" thereon="" at="" the="" rate="" seven="" per="" cent="" annum="" from="" october="" 29,="" by="" an="" order="" september="" 16,="" 2014.="" upon="" company="" not="" discharging="" payment="" within="" four="" weeks="" admission,="" such="" petition="" advertised.="" represented="" post-advertisement="" stage="" and="" despite="" directions="" being="" issued="" filing="" affidavits="" stage,="" chose="" to="" be="" when="" matter="" taken="" up="" on="" july="" 24,="" 2015.="" directed="" wound="" date.\n2="" ca="" no.566="" 2015="" filed="" 8,="" were="" advertising="" same="" application="" regarded="" as="" one="" under="" section="" 466="" companies="" act,="" 1956="" since="" indicated="" its="" willingness="" settle="" claim="" petitioning-creditor.="" appearing="" creditors="" opposed="" stay="" winding-up.="" did="" tender="" any="" or="" deposit="" court="" have="" confidence="" in="" that="" there="" chance="" revival.it="" observed="" no="" impediment="" official="" liquidator="" taking="" possession="" all="" books,="" records,="" documents="" assets="" liquidation.\n3="" money="" forthcoming="" admission="" passed="" more="" than="" year="" prior="" 15,="" 2015,="" found="" reason="" interfere="" liquidator's="" obligation="" take="" control="" company's="" assets.="" repeat,="" token="" made="" offered="" dues="" unsecured="" creditors,="" present="" court,="" running="" into="" several="" crores.\n4="" preferred="" appeal="" which="" disposed="" november="" 19,="" requiring="" post="" his="" guards="" premises="" but="" business="" company,="" carried="" supervision="" agent.\n5="" high="" held="" under:\nit="" is="" now="" incumbent="" least="" principal="" amounts="" covered="" claims="" two="" petitioning="" asked="" hands.="" accordingly,="" carry="" demand="" drafts="" pay="" orders="" like="" instruments,="" personal="" cheques,="" favour="" rs.1.65="" crore="" appears="" next="" week="" hence.="" default="" tendered,="" may="" dismissed="" required="" forthwith="" properties="" liquidation.\nthe="" will="" also="" furnish="" complete="" accounts="" transactions="" till="" today="" continuation="" after="" winding-up="" has="" only="" benefit="" creditors."}"="" data-sheets-userformat="{" 2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"arial","16":10}"="">2. CA No.566 of 2015 was filed on September 8, 2015. Directions were issued for advertising the same and the application was regarded as one under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the company indicated its willingness to settle its claim with the petitioning-creditor. The appearing creditors opposed the stay of the order of winding-up. The company did not tender any payment or deposit for the court to have any confidence in the company that there was a chance of its revival.It was observed that there was no impediment to the Official Liquidator taking possession of all books, records, documents and assets of the company in liquidation.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{" 1":2,"2":"1="" cp="" no.771="" of="" 2013="" was="" admitted="" for="" a="" sum="" rs.1,84,75,646="" -="" together="" with="" interest="" thereon="" at="" the="" rate="" seven="" per="" cent="" annum="" from="" october="" 29,="" by="" an="" order="" september="" 16,="" 2014.="" upon="" company="" not="" discharging="" payment="" within="" four="" weeks="" admission,="" such="" petition="" advertised.="" represented="" post-advertisement="" stage="" and="" despite="" directions="" being="" issued="" filing="" affidavits="" stage,="" chose="" to="" be="" when="" matter="" taken="" up="" on="" july="" 24,="" 2015.="" directed="" wound="" date.\n2="" ca="" no.566="" 2015="" filed="" 8,="" were="" advertising="" same="" application="" regarded="" as="" one="" under="" section="" 466="" companies="" act,="" 1956="" since="" indicated="" its="" willingness="" settle="" claim="" petitioning-creditor.="" appearing="" creditors="" opposed="" stay="" winding-up.="" did="" tender="" any="" or="" deposit="" court="" have="" confidence="" in="" that="" there="" chance="" revival.it="" observed="" no="" impediment="" official="" liquidator="" taking="" possession="" all="" books,="" records,="" documents="" assets="" liquidation.\n3="" money="" forthcoming="" admission="" passed="" more="" than="" year="" prior="" 15,="" 2015,="" found="" reason="" interfere="" liquidator's="" obligation="" take="" control="" company's="" assets.="" repeat,="" token="" made="" offered="" dues="" unsecured="" creditors,="" present="" court,="" running="" into="" several="" crores.\n4="" preferred="" appeal="" which="" disposed="" november="" 19,="" requiring="" post="" his="" guards="" premises="" but="" business="" company,="" carried="" supervision="" agent.\n5="" high="" held="" under:\nit="" is="" now="" incumbent="" least="" principal="" amounts="" covered="" claims="" two="" petitioning="" asked="" hands.="" accordingly,="" carry="" demand="" drafts="" pay="" orders="" like="" instruments,="" personal="" cheques,="" favour="" rs.1.65="" crore="" appears="" next="" week="" hence.="" default="" tendered,="" may="" dismissed="" required="" forthwith="" properties="" liquidation.\nthe="" will="" also="" furnish="" complete="" accounts="" transactions="" till="" today="" continuation="" after="" winding-up="" has="" only="" benefit="" creditors."}"="" data-sheets-userformat="{" 2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"arial","16":10}"="">3. Since no money was forthcoming from the company despite the order of admission being passed more than a year prior to October 15, 2015, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Official Liquidator's obligation to take control of the company's assets. To repeat, no token deposit was made or offered to be made by the company despite its dues to its unsecured creditors, present in court, running into several crores.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{" 1":2,"2":"1="" cp="" no.771="" of="" 2013="" was="" admitted="" for="" a="" sum="" rs.1,84,75,646="" -="" together="" with="" interest="" thereon="" at="" the="" rate="" seven="" per="" cent="" annum="" from="" october="" 29,="" by="" an="" order="" september="" 16,="" 2014.="" upon="" company="" not="" discharging="" payment="" within="" four="" weeks="" admission,="" such="" petition="" advertised.="" represented="" post-advertisement="" stage="" and="" despite="" directions="" being="" issued="" filing="" affidavits="" stage,="" chose="" to="" be="" when="" matter="" taken="" up="" on="" july="" 24,="" 2015.="" directed="" wound="" date.\n2="" ca="" no.566="" 2015="" filed="" 8,="" were="" advertising="" same="" application="" regarded="" as="" one="" under="" section="" 466="" companies="" act,="" 1956="" since="" indicated="" its="" willingness="" settle="" claim="" petitioning-creditor.="" appearing="" creditors="" opposed="" stay="" winding-up.="" did="" tender="" any="" or="" deposit="" court="" have="" confidence="" in="" that="" there="" chance="" revival.it="" observed="" no="" impediment="" official="" liquidator="" taking="" possession="" all="" books,="" records,="" documents="" assets="" liquidation.\n3="" money="" forthcoming="" admission="" passed="" more="" than="" year="" prior="" 15,="" 2015,="" found="" reason="" interfere="" liquidator's="" obligation="" take="" control="" company's="" assets.="" repeat,="" token="" made="" offered="" dues="" unsecured="" creditors,="" present="" court,="" running="" into="" several="" crores.\n4="" preferred="" appeal="" which="" disposed="" november="" 19,="" requiring="" post="" his="" guards="" premises="" but="" business="" company,="" carried="" supervision="" agent.\n5="" high="" held="" under:\nit="" is="" now="" incumbent="" least="" principal="" amounts="" covered="" claims="" two="" petitioning="" asked="" hands.="" accordingly,="" carry="" demand="" drafts="" pay="" orders="" like="" instruments,="" personal="" cheques,="" favour="" rs.1.65="" crore="" appears="" next="" week="" hence.="" default="" tendered,="" may="" dismissed="" required="" forthwith="" properties="" liquidation.\nthe="" will="" also="" furnish="" complete="" accounts="" transactions="" till="" today="" continuation="" after="" winding-up="" has="" only="" benefit="" creditors."}"="" data-sheets-userformat="{" 2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"arial","16":10}"="">4. The company preferred an appeal from the order of October 15, 2015 passed on CA No.566 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 19, 2015 by requiring the Official Liquidator to post his guards at the company premises but not to interfere with the business of the company, which business was to be carried on under the supervision of the Official Liquidator or his agent.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{" 1":2,"2":"1="" cp="" no.771="" of="" 2013="" was="" admitted="" for="" a="" sum="" rs.1,84,75,646="" -="" together="" with="" interest="" thereon="" at="" the="" rate="" seven="" per="" cent="" annum="" from="" october="" 29,="" by="" an="" order="" september="" 16,="" 2014.="" upon="" company="" not="" discharging="" payment="" within="" four="" weeks="" admission,="" such="" petition="" advertised.="" represented="" post-advertisement="" stage="" and="" despite="" directions="" being="" issued="" filing="" affidavits="" stage,="" chose="" to="" be="" when="" matter="" taken="" up="" on="" july="" 24,="" 2015.="" directed="" wound="" date.\n2="" ca="" no.566="" 2015="" filed="" 8,="" were="" advertising="" same="" application="" regarded="" as="" one="" under="" section="" 466="" companies="" act,="" 1956="" since="" indicated="" its="" willingness="" settle="" claim="" petitioning-creditor.="" appearing="" creditors="" opposed="" stay="" winding-up.="" did="" tender="" any="" or="" deposit="" court="" have="" confidence="" in="" that="" there="" chance="" revival.it="" observed="" no="" impediment="" official="" liquidator="" taking="" possession="" all="" books,="" records,="" documents="" assets="" liquidation.\n3="" money="" forthcoming="" admission="" passed="" more="" than="" year="" prior="" 15,="" 2015,="" found="" reason="" interfere="" liquidator's="" obligation="" take="" control="" company's="" assets.="" repeat,="" token="" made="" offered="" dues="" unsecured="" creditors,="" present="" court,="" running="" into="" several="" crores.\n4="" preferred="" appeal="" which="" disposed="" november="" 19,="" requiring="" post="" his="" guards="" premises="" but="" business="" company,="" carried="" supervision="" agent.\n5="" high="" held="" under:\nit="" is="" now="" incumbent="" least="" principal="" amounts="" covered="" claims="" two="" petitioning="" asked="" hands.="" accordingly,="" carry="" demand="" drafts="" pay="" orders="" like="" instruments,="" personal="" cheques,="" favour="" rs.1.65="" crore="" appears="" next="" week="" hence.="" default="" tendered,="" may="" dismissed="" required="" forthwith="" properties="" liquidation.\nthe="" will="" also="" furnish="" complete="" accounts="" transactions="" till="" today="" continuation="" after="" winding-up="" has="" only="" benefit="" creditors."}"="" data-sheets-userformat="{" 2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"arial","16":10}"="">5. The High Court held as under:<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{" 1":2,"2":"1="" cp="" no.771="" of="" 2013="" was="" admitted="" for="" a="" sum="" rs.1,84,75,646="" -="" together="" with="" interest="" thereon="" at="" the="" rate="" seven="" per="" cent="" annum="" from="" october="" 29,="" by="" an="" order="" september="" 16,="" 2014.="" upon="" company="" not="" discharging="" payment="" within="" four="" weeks="" admission,="" such="" petition="" advertised.="" represented="" post-advertisement="" stage="" and="" despite="" directions="" being="" issued="" filing="" affidavits="" stage,="" chose="" to="" be="" when="" matter="" taken="" up="" on="" july="" 24,="" 2015.="" directed="" wound="" date.\n2="" ca="" no.566="" 2015="" filed="" 8,="" were="" advertising="" same="" application="" regarded="" as="" one="" under="" section="" 466="" companies="" act,="" 1956="" since="" indicated="" its="" willingness="" settle="" claim="" petitioning-creditor.="" appearing="" creditors="" opposed="" stay="" winding-up.="" did="" tender="" any="" or="" deposit="" court="" have="" confidence="" in="" that="" there="" chance="" revival.it="" observed="" no="" impediment="" official="" liquidator="" taking="" possession="" all="" books,="" records,="" documents="" assets="" liquidation.\n3="" money="" forthcoming="" admission="" passed="" more="" than="" year="" prior="" 15,="" 2015,="" found="" reason="" interfere="" liquidator's="" obligation="" take="" control="" company's="" assets.="" repeat,="" token="" made="" offered="" dues="" unsecured="" creditors,="" present="" court,="" running="" into="" several="" crores.\n4="" preferred="" appeal="" which="" disposed="" november="" 19,="" requiring="" post="" his="" guards="" premises="" but="" business="" company,="" carried="" supervision="" agent.\n5="" high="" held="" under:\nit="" is="" now="" incumbent="" least="" principal="" amounts="" covered="" claims="" two="" petitioning="" asked="" hands.="" accordingly,="" carry="" demand="" drafts="" pay="" orders="" like="" instruments,="" personal="" cheques,="" favour="" rs.1.65="" crore="" appears="" next="" week="" hence.="" default="" tendered,="" may="" dismissed="" required="" forthwith="" properties="" liquidation.\nthe="" will="" also="" furnish="" complete="" accounts="" transactions="" till="" today="" continuation="" after="" winding-up="" has="" only="" benefit="" creditors."}"="" data-sheets-userformat="{" 2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"arial","16":10}"="">It is now incumbent on the company to deposit at least the principal amounts covered by the claims of the two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. Accordingly, the company is directed to carry demand drafts or pay orders or like instruments, not being personal cheques, in favour of the Official Liquidator for a sum of Rs.1.65 crore when the matter appears next a week hence. In default of such payment being tendered, the company's application may be dismissed and the Official Liquidator may be required to forthwith take possession of all assets and properties of the company in liquidation.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{" 1":2,"2":"1="" cp="" no.771="" of="" 2013="" was="" admitted="" for="" a="" sum="" rs.1,84,75,646="" -="" together="" with="" interest="" thereon="" at="" the="" rate="" seven="" per="" cent="" annum="" from="" october="" 29,="" by="" an="" order="" september="" 16,="" 2014.="" upon="" company="" not="" discharging="" payment="" within="" four="" weeks="" admission,="" such="" petition="" advertised.="" represented="" post-advertisement="" stage="" and="" despite="" directions="" being="" issued="" filing="" affidavits="" stage,="" chose="" to="" be="" when="" matter="" taken="" up="" on="" july="" 24,="" 2015.="" directed="" wound="" date.\n2="" ca="" no.566="" 2015="" filed="" 8,="" were="" advertising="" same="" application="" regarded="" as="" one="" under="" section="" 466="" companies="" act,="" 1956="" since="" indicated="" its="" willingness="" settle="" claim="" petitioning-creditor.="" appearing="" creditors="" opposed="" stay="" winding-up.="" did="" tender="" any="" or="" deposit="" court="" have="" confidence="" in="" that="" there="" chance="" revival.it="" observed="" no="" impediment="" official="" liquidator="" taking="" possession="" all="" books,="" records,="" documents="" assets="" liquidation.\n3="" money="" forthcoming="" admission="" passed="" more="" than="" year="" prior="" 15,="" 2015,="" found="" reason="" interfere="" liquidator's="" obligation="" take="" control="" company's="" assets.="" repeat,="" token="" made="" offered="" dues="" unsecured="" creditors,="" present="" court,="" running="" into="" several="" crores.\n4="" preferred="" appeal="" which="" disposed="" november="" 19,="" requiring="" post="" his="" guards="" premises="" but="" business="" company,="" carried="" supervision="" agent.\n5="" high="" held="" under:\nit="" is="" now="" incumbent="" least="" principal="" amounts="" covered="" claims="" two="" petitioning="" asked="" hands.="" accordingly,="" carry="" demand="" drafts="" pay="" orders="" like="" instruments,="" personal="" cheques,="" favour="" rs.1.65="" crore="" appears="" next="" week="" hence.="" default="" tendered,="" may="" dismissed="" required="" forthwith="" properties="" liquidation.\nthe="" will="" also="" furnish="" complete="" accounts="" transactions="" till="" today="" continuation="" after="" winding-up="" has="" only="" benefit="" creditors."}"="" data-sheets-userformat="{" 2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"arial","16":10}"="">The company will also furnish complete accounts as to its transactions from July 24, 2015 till today since the continuation of its business after the order of winding-up was passed has to be regarded to be only for the benefit of its creditors.

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

Full News

Company ordered to deposit principal amounts to stay liquidator's action