Allowed

B.I.F.R. v. M/S.Meltron Semiconductors Ltd.

Bombay HC10 Jul 2013CP/345/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed the company petition for the winding up of M/s Meltron Semiconductors Ltd. based on the BIFR's opinion and the Official Liquidator's status report confirming substantial recovery steps, permitting the winding up to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The respondent company is directed to be wound up. The Official Liquidator continues in office to undertake required exercises.

B.I.F.R. Vs M/S.Meltron Semiconductors Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

51-CP345-06.doc

¶2

JP CHAVAN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 345 OF 2006

¶5

B.I.F.R. ... Petitioner Versus

¶6

M/s Meltron Semiconductors Ltd. ... Respondent

¶7

Ms. Yogini Chauhan AOL present None for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 10 JULY 2013

¶9

P.C.

¶10

By Communication dated 18 January 2006, received from the Registrar of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Registry of BIFR had forwarded an order passed by the Bench of BIFR dated 7 November 2005 under the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985. The BIFR had recorded an opinion that the respondent Company- Meltron Semiconductors Ltd., needs to be wound up.

¶11

The communication dated 8 January 2006 along with copy of the order passed by the BIFR was placed before the Court. On 13 April 2006, the Court after perusal of the order of BIFR, came to the opinion that the petition needs to be admitted. The Court also noted that there was nothing on record to suggest that company has challenged the order of the BIFR before the AAIFR or that the order has been stayed. Accordingly the petition was admitted and was made returnable on 13 July 2006 and the Official Liquidator was appointed as provisional liquidator. The office was also directed to issue notice to under Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

¶12

1/2

¶13

51-CP345-06.doc

¶14

The petition came up for hearing on 24 June 2013. The Official Liquidator who had been appointed as provisional liquidator has taken steps for realization of the assets and distributions of the amount dues. The Official Liquidator was directed to file status report. Accordingly the status report dated 10 July 2013 is filed.

¶15

It is stated in the report that on 9 October 2006 a meeting with all ex-directors and the secured creditors was held and the pursuant to the meetings, possession of the properties were taken. The details of the properties are specified in the report. It is also stated that after taking possession of the movable and immovable properties auction was conducted and by order dated 1 October 2008, sale of immovable property was confirmed. In the report, the further proceedings that were taken out for disposal of the property have been detailed. It is stated in the report that the total 236 claims were received, out of which 234 claims were adjudicated and admitted. Thus, it is clear form the report that as a provisional liquidator, the Official Liquidator has taken substantial steps.

¶16

None appears for the respondent company when the matter is called out. None appeared on the earlier date as well.

¶17

Considering the circumstances which are narrated above, the Company petition is allowed. The respondent Meltron Semiconductors Ltd. is directed to be wound up.

¶18

The Official Liquidator who was appointed as provisional liquidator will continue as an Official Liquidator and undertake all such exercise which is required as per law.

¶19

The company petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶20

(N. M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶21

2/2

B.I.F.R. v. M/S.Meltron Semiconductors Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.I.F.R. v. M/S.Meltron Semiconductors Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jpmorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Vs the Official Liquidator of Atash Industries(I) Ltd.

Smt. Manisha Waman Kadwakar, W/O of Late Shrei Waman K. Kadwadkar Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay of M/S.Mafatlal Engg.Ind.Ltd. in Liqn.

Alia Creative Consultants Pvt.Ltd. Vs -----

Shri Radheyshyam B. Poddar Vs the Official Liquidator of Audhnik Yarns Limited

Ratan Singh Rana Vs Oilco Services (India) Limited

Axis Bank Limited Vs Konduskar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U24296PN2006PTC128751