Debt claim can't be challenged post winding-up admission; Distinguishes Kar. HC judgment
Division Bench of Calcutta HC rules that a company (against whom winding up proceedings are initiated) can't challenge merits of the debt claim at post-admission stage of winding up; Holds that since there is full hearing on the claim at pre-admission stage, parties' fate on adjudication of claim is sealed, it can only be re-opened at post advertisement stage by others when question is on locus of petitioning creditor; Rejects company's reliance on Karnataka HC ruling in Air wings Private Limited Vs. Viktoria Air Cargo Gumbh Langer Kornweg wherein the company was permitted to raise dispute on the claim even at post admission stage, states that, "We do not know under what circumstance, the Karnataka Division Bench observed so"; Further observes that while presumption of insolvency drawn in creditor's favor in winding up petitions may be rebutted by raising a bona fide dispute on claim, such claim shall be final if Court's adjudication on such dispute goes against the company; states "if we do not draw finality, there would be no sanctity to the decision of the Court of law"; Notes that company had taken different grounds to oppose winding up proceedings at different instances, states that they were "cooked up only to stall the process of winding up", relies on SC observations in Harinagar Sugar Mills Company Limited v. M.W. Pradhan and co-ordinate bench observations in SRC Steel Limited Vs. Bharat Industrial Corporation Limited:Calcutta HC
Gazetted copy of FEMA amendments; Section 6(3) deleted; Central Govt's powers increased
Amendments to Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 as approved by Parliament vide Finance Bill, 2015 now published in Official Gazette; Definitions of 'Authorised Officer' & 'Competent Authority' added, Section 6 (capital account transactions) amended to bifurcate between capital account transactions involving debt instruments and other transactions; Central Govt (in consultation with RBI) empowered to define 'debt instruments'; Central Govt (in consultation with RBI) to also prescribe classes of permissible capital account transactions not involving debt instruments, admissible limit of foreign exchange for such transactions; RBI's powers limited only to prescribe permissible classes of capital account transactions involving debt instruments, admissible limits of foreign exchange for such transactions; Sec 6(3) of FEMA deleted which authorised RBI to regulate, prohibit, restrict transfer / issue of foreign security by a person resident in India / person resident outside India etc.
COMPANY CASES (CC) HIGHLIGHTS
F Where reference to BIFR registered after passing of winding up order, proceedings cannot be suspended : Kamlapur Sugar and Industries Ltd., In re (Cal) p. 146
F Where recovery proceedings initiated by SEBI, petitioner failed to pay dues, detention and arrest order passed by TRO against petitioner was arbitrary and illegal : Vinod Hingorani v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Bom) p. 160
F Where no public announcement of buy-back of shares, offence not complete and prosecution quashed : Dattaraj V. Salgaocar v. State of Maharashtra (Bom) p. 177
F Where exclusive jurisdiction conferred on English courts and application of English laws to contract intended, petitioner not justified in seeking to invoke jurisdiction of Indian court : Bank of New York Mellon v. Cranes Software International Ltd. (Karn) p. 195
F Where evidence to indicate that company is guilty of financial irregularities and contravention of statutory provisions, investigation justified u/s. 237 of 1956 Act : Shree Seco P. Ltd. v. S. A. Traders P. Ltd. p. 181
F Single act of oppression being harsh, burdensome and wrongful, persisting for 12 years is continuing act of oppression : Shubhkam Ventures (I.) P. Ltd. v. Milton Plastics Ltd. p. 210
F DLF's IPO case : An analysis-Vishakha Panchangam and Sachin p.1
F New insider trading norms in India-Evolution of regulatory apparatus-Chitwan Deep Singh and Raghunath Seshadri p. 11
F Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Monsanto Manufactures P. Ltd. [2015] 189 Comp Cas 69 (SC) : Does it need reconsideration ?-Dr. K. R. Chandratre p. 18
| COMPANY LAW INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT. LTD. No. 2, Vaithyaram Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017. Phone: (044) 24350752 - 55 Fax: (044) 24322015 info@cliofindia.com |
To Unsubscribe : Reply back with "Unsubscribe" in subject followed by the key word "ITR" or "CC" or "VST" or "ITR (Trib)" or "GSTR", respectively or "All" if you do not want any Email. ITR : Income Tax Reports, CC : Company Cases, VST : VAT and Service Tax Cases, GSTR : Goods and Service Tax Reports, ITR (Trib) : ITR'S Tribunal Tax Reports. Also send your feedback or comments to info@cliofindia.com
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment