Dismissed

Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Limited v. Bhf-Bank Aktiengesellschaft

Bombay HC1 Aug 2014APP/433/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a winding up order, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held the appeal was not maintainable as the Company Judge had not determined the rights of parties concerning the underlying winding up petition, which was sub-judice before the BIFR.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Company Judge had not determined the rights of the parties.

Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Limited Vs Bhf-Bank… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

APPL 457-2014

¶2

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

¶3

APPEAL (L) NO. 457 OF 2014 IN

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 397 OF 2000

¶5

Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd. .. Appellant V/s. BHF Bank Aktiengesellschaft .. Respondent

¶6

Mr. Nitin Thakker, Senior Advocate with Mr. Z.A. Jariwala and Mr. Dhawal Mohan i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the appellant. Ms. Sneh Mehta i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S. SONAK, J.

¶8

DATE : 1 AUGUST 2014

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This appeal is directed against the order dated 15 July 2014 of the learned Company Judge in a winding up petition filed by the respondent bank against the appellant company, which is presently before the BIFR under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “SICA”).

¶11

The learned counsel for the respondent bank has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable as the learned Company Judge has not determined the rights of the parties

1 of 3

Abs

APPL 457-2014

regarding the controversy which is subject matter of the winding up petition.

¶16

The learned counsel for the appellant then submits that in view of the provisions of section 22 of SICA, the winding up proceedings have to be kept in abeyance and, therefore, the learned Company Judge ought not to have passed the order under appeal. Without prejudice to the same, it is further submitted that the observations made by the learned Company Judge against the appellant company are quite damning and that if the BIFR goes by these observations, the appellant company may not get any relief from the BIFR.

¶17

The learned counsel for the respondent bank has supported the order under appeal.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Company Judge has not determined the rights of the parties qua the controversy which is subject matter of the winding up petition pending since 2000. As regards the observations made by the learned Company Judge in the order under appeal, the learned Company Judge has merely indicated his impression about the conduct of the appellant company in the proceedings before the BIFR. Ultimately it is for the BIFR to take a decision on the draft rehabilitation scheme which is pending before

2 of 3

Abs

APPL 457-2014

the BIFR on its own merits and also to form its own opinion about the conduct of the appellant company. The learned counsel for the appellant company sought to take us through the minutes of several proceedings before the BIFR in order to submit that the conduct of the appellant company before the BIFR is not at all blameworthy and that the delay in the proceedings before the BIFR is not attributable to the appellant company.

¶23

We do not propose to acquiesce any opinion as the proceedings are pending before the BIFR and that BIFR will form its own opinion about the role being played by various agencies who are parties before the BIFR.

¶24

Subject to this clarification, we dismiss the appeal as the learned Company Judge has not determined the rights of the parties.

CHIEF JUSTICE

(M.S. SONAK, J.)

3 of 3

Abs

Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Limited v. Bhf-Bank Aktiengesellschaft

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Limited v. Bhf-Bank Aktiengesellschaft

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

Avitel Post Studioz Limited and 3 Others Vs Hsbc Pi Holdings (Mauritius) Limited

Samar Vijaykumar Pupala and Anr. Vs Shalini Pratap Hambir and 5 Ors.

Psl Ltd. Vs M.V. Khalijia 3 and 3 Ors.

Pradeep Prahlad Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Anis Ahmed and 15 Others Vs M/S. Aftab Construction and Another

The Country Manager (India) Abc Pacific Vs Smt. Loretta D Mello and Anr.