Company Appeal No. 2/2015. Case: Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd. Vs Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Company Appeal No. 2/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate and D.V. Chauhan, Advocate and For Respondents: S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate and Rahul Pande, Advocate |
| Judges | B. P. Dharmadhikari and V. M. Deshpande, JJ. |
| Issue | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 31(6), 8 |
| Judgement Date | January 29, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.
-
In this appeal, the appellant/petitioner in an Application under Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 challenges order dated 15.10.2015, passed by the learned Company Court in Company Petition No. 11/2015. The petitioner has sought winding up of respondent Company on the ground that the respondent Company, is unable to pay its debt of Rs. 102,26,78,728/- to it. Learned Company Court has by an order dated 15.10.2015, postponed consideration of the matter to 27.01.2016, on the ground that some Arbitration proceedings are pending and the same amount is also subject matter of claim before the Arbitrator.
-
This Court has admitted the matter on 02.12.2015, and kept it on 12.01.2016, as the matter before the Company Court is scheduled to come up on 27.01.2016. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellant has pointed out that the arbitration proceedings are now coming up on 16.01.2016.
-
In this situation, we have heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri D.V. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Shri S.V. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rahul Pande, learned Counsel for the respondent Company.
-
Effort of Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel is to demonstrate that there is no urgency in the matter, and hence out of turn hearing is unwarranted. He has also urged that the Company Court has taken adequate precaution to see that interest of appellant/petitioner is not jeopardized.
-
Shri Balbir Singh learned Senior Counsel has invited our attention to certain judgments to urge that arbitration proceedings cannot operate as a bar to the proceedings for winding up, and hence, in absence of a comment on relevance or impact thereof, the Company Court could not have subjected request of winding up to arbitration proceedings. He contends that, winding up application cannot be treated as a suit for recovery. The arbitration clause appears in a family settlement between individuals, who are members of same family and are on Board of Directors of various companies. On the strength of said family settlement, the composition of companies have been altered and in accordance with the permissions given by this Court and the Calcutta High Court, merger or de-merger has taken place. This situation has attained finality. One Strip Mill is to go ultimately to respondent and hence, as per the family settlement, it is the liability of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial