You are on page 1of 17

“PERSONS TO BE HEARD IN RELATION TO WINDING UP PETITIONS”

Authors:
1. Nupur Srivastava
National Law University, Odisha
2. Apurv Taran Jain
National Law University, Odisha

ABSTRACT
Winding up of a company is a process whereby its life is ended and its property is administered
for the benefit of its creditors and members.1 This process plays a crucial role in corporate
jurisprudence as this is a step where most of the rights and duties given to different persons by
law, ceases to apply and this in fact, brings forth the discretionary exercise of power by the
judicial bodies and company management as appointed by such bodies. This may give scope for
abuse to process of law where some rights may be prejudiced to stakeholders or others whose
interests may be affected by the winding up process. Taking these issues at hand, this project
deals with the persons who are to be heard in relation to winding up petitions.
The Companies Act, 1956 enlists the persons2 who can present an application for winding up by
means of a petition to the Court concerned. They include creditors, members, company, official
liquidator, any person appointed by the Government and the registrar under different
circumstances. However there is a difference between right to present petition for winding up
and right to be heard in relation thereto.
(Total Words= 4454 Words)
1

A K Majumdar and G K Kapoor, Company Law and Practice (16th edn., TAXMANN PUBLICATIONS 2011)

[1084].
2

Indian Companies Act 1956, s 439.

1|Page

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2230492

RESEARCH QUESTION 3 The Insolvency Act. However in case of India. Indian corporate law has evolved mostly from the common law jurisprudence and winding up procedures are much similar. 1956 and the procedure as given in the Companies (court) rules.(Key Words: Winding up. Persons) INTRODUCTION The scope of the present project is to cover Indian law relating to winding up of the companies restricted to the supervision of court as governed by The Companies Act. do the other persons affected by the company get a chance to be heard at the proceedings and what is the ambit of the relief provided? These ‘other persons’ may include employees of a company or worker’s union or unregistered members. The main objective of the researcher is to analyze in depth the persons whose interests are affected directly or indirectly and the scope of remedy given to them by hearing their petitions. 4 The Companies Act. 2006. 2|Page Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn. A comparative study will include the liquidation procedures in common law which are mostly governed by the Insolvency Laws 3 and the company law4 also. The statutory provisions have been interpreted broadly as well as narrowly in different circumstances. hence objective is to find out that along with the rights of the shareholders. Insolvency law is not dealt with in this project as there is some difference between both the concepts. hence a critical evaluation of the reforms and development of the principles of legal theory relating to winding up has been taken into account.com/abstract=2230492 . This incorporates the principle of natural justice audi alteram partem (right of any other person to be heard) and thus weaving of the corporate governance principle into the concept of winding up: companies vis-à-vis courts. Petition. 1959. creditors ( secured and unsecured) and managers. Company. 1985.

(19th edn. it is the wishes of creditors. includes any person alleged to be a contributory. the wishes of the contributories as the persons chiefly interested in the assets.Stevens & sons publisher. carry most weight. s 428. and all proceedings prior to the final determination of.p. 3|Page .5 CONTRIBUTORY’S AND CREDITOR’S PETITION The term ‘contributory’ has been defined in section 428 of the companies act as ‘every person liable to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of its being wound up. 6 Indian Companies Act 1956. Principle: If a company is solvent. SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS TO BE HEARD. and includes the holder of any shares which are fully paid up.6’ He may petition if the 5 Palmer’s Company Law. and for the purposes of all proceedings for determining. Is there a prejudice to the interests of the persons who are not given statutory right to file a petition for winding up of companies? Sub Questions  What is the spectrum of hearing by courts and rights given to employees (workers)?  What is the right conferred on other creditors like banking and financial institutions?  Does transfer of powers from the company management in the hands of the official liquidator affect stakeholders rights?  What is the role of Government in the said petitions?  What is the ambit of ‘Public Interest’ in the hearing of petitions by the Court? Does it include society at large? RIGHT OF MEMBERS. the persons who are to be deemed contributories. but if the company is insolvent.385) as cited in TAXMANN(n 1).

It is held in common law that if a shareholder makes such 7 Indian Companies Act 1956. 11 Re Home Remedies Ltd. 4|Page . but it may be a matter of doubt whether a creditor can contract out of this right. The right given to courts to make a winding up order has been imported from common law on the recommendation of the company law committee that courts qualify a rule of law when they pass this order on ‘just and equitable grounds’. A Guide To Companies Act. 2010). [1966] 1 All ER 145. special circumstances exist when contributories are given preference11 . p.number of members in a company have reduced below the statutory minimum or on other grounds directly affecting the shares held by him (preceding 6 months minimum). 8 A Ramaiya. s 439(3). However interests of creditors are to be prioritized and left on the discretion of courts. s 433(d).7 Hence it may be used synonymously with the shareholders.”9 However this is not the position in India10 as statute permits the winding up application even though no asset would be available for the shareholders. (17th edn. (1942) 2 All ER 552. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa. he must show prima facie that there will be availability of assets for distribution amongst the shareholders. Re Macrae (P&J) Ltd.8 Buckley J. This brings a question on the legitimate expectation of the stakeholders. has held: “ It remains a rule of this court that where a fully paid shareholder presents a petition for compulsory winding up. 12 A Ramaiya(n 8) (4025). (1961) 1 All ER 302 as cited in TAXMANN(n 1). 9 Re Othery Construction Co. The preferential treatment of the creditors in relation to realization of assets or repayment has been the core principle of corporate and contractual theories but in relation to the winding up petitions. However in common law. even depending on facts. it is debatable. However non-registered contributory does not come within the meaning of member. 10 Indian Companies Act 1956.4014.12 The right to present a petition can be called a class right.

Chloro Controls (India) Pvt. 18 (1956) 1 All ER 799 .(1987) 22 Wake Forest L.a contract. (1969) 2 All ER 344. Re19. Ltd. The interpretation of section 439(4)(b)15 was in question and it was held by the apex court that the law in India is an exhaustive code leaving no room for equitable considerations. However the doubt remains as to the position of a creditor in this regard13.Shyamsaran Gupta (respondent) made an application for winding up of the company on the ground that the 13 Re Peveril Gold mines Ltd. Even in case of Gattopardo.Ltd Dabra v Shyam Sharan Gupta and Co.(1956) 2 WLR 844 : 1956 Ch 577.14 was related to the objection raised on the locus standi of Severn Trent as it was not registered as a member of the company formed after merger of two companies. Ltd.20 Thus the common law has left much to judicial discretion. 20 Nigel Furey . 16 Severn trent Case (n 13). section 519 of the Companies Act.L.16 The principle behind such judgments is that no person should be able to wreck the company without registering himself as a member.’The Statutory Protection of Minority Shareholders in United Kingdom’ . <http://heinonline. H.18the Chancery Court held that Section 224(1) of the Companies Act. NON-MEMBER SHAREHOLDERS. The landmark judgment of Supreme Court Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.org>accessed on 25 August 2012.21. 81. 14 2006 (3) BomCR 119. Ltd.(1969) 1 WLR 619. Rev. v. 19 . 15 Indian Companies Act 1956. Even in the case of Gwalior Sugar Co. 1985 it says that the original allottee need not be a registered member who can present a petition. 1948 was designed to provide an 'exhaustive list' of those who are entitled to present a petition for compulsory winding-up. [1898] 1 Ch 122. 21 AIR 1969 MP 74. 17 Palmer’s (n 5). it is against the statute and so it is void. similar judgment was given. However in chapter 6. Bolton Engineering Co. Re. 5|Page .17 In Common law similar rulings have been given in relation to the interpretation.

23 Companies (Court) Rules 1959. 360 (1972).23 Hence the law is settled on this issue which can have a negative connotation on the grounds of equity. 1959. The House of Lords recognized that in many companies there are underlying expectations regarding the exercise of legal and constitutional rights which. the petition shall be advertised within the time and in the manner provided by rule 24 of these rules. Dabra applied for leave to intervene. in removing a director from office. had acted both lawfully and constitutionally.company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 433(e) of the Companies Act.Sabapathy Rao v Sabapathy Press Ltd. Ltd. nor a contributory. 25 Nigel Furey. Similar legislations have existed in India26. s 99 states “Subject to any directions of the Court.. Hence the courts deem to give the order on the basis of absence of an efficacious remedy available. nor does it come within the expression "other person desirous of supporting or opposing the making of an order on the said petition". 1956 (oppression and mismanagement). Form No.48. Westbourne Galleries Ltd24 This decision granted a just and equitable winding up order in circumstances when the majority shareholders. 24 1973 A. (n 20). 48”. 489. The advertisement shall be in Form No. 26 R.25 The constitutional rights can be in the form of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution as right to personal liberty and make free choice. then the winding up petition will not be maintainable. if unfulfilled. entitle a shareholder-petitioner to have the company wound up. When the petition for winding up was advertised under Rule 9922 of the Companies (Court) Rules. 1956. 6|Page . as it desired to oppose the petition.C. OPPRESSION The common law judicial development of minority rights was the 1972 decision of the House of Lords in Ebrahimi v. However a conflict arises in between the two provisions when the petition has been filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. the Gwalior Sugar Co. 22 Companies (Court) Rules 1959. AIR 1925 Mad. Its application was rejected on the ground that the intervener is neither a creditor.

[1991] 70 Comp.S.Indistries v Indo Cap.28 it was held that where a part of a debt is undisputed.29 Even nonpayment of the dividend to the shareholder makes him the creditor. This makes the court give an order for a declaration of insolvency without going to the core of the situation. 31 Keerat Kaur v Patiala Exhibition. 169. a receiver was appointed by one of the factions and accounts were misinterpreted bearing a loss to the creditors.APPLICABILITY OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLE 27 In re India Electric Works. 7|Page . where two factions were holding 50% shares each of a company and it being a family owned company. In R. Cas.) Ltd. The confusion of the law is that it totally depends on the facts of the case whether the debt claimed by the creditor will be admissible or not. Mere showing of the existence of debt in the balance-sheet cannot amount to the company being wound up.A creditor’s petition has to be heard in the court on the ground that the company is unable its debts27. There have to be circumstances to show the commercial insolvency of the company. 29 Dr. 30 TAXMANN. There has been an abuse in the process of law when it comes to the sole discretionary powers of courts as to interpretation of the word ‘debt’. [2005] 59 SCL 602 (Kar. remains a grey area as to whether company is insolvent. (P. Hence relief should be granted to such creditors even by way of separate proceedings.Vanitha K.) Ltd.30 The presumption in section 434 which enumerates when a company is ‘deemed’ unable to pay its debts. 728. Court has to see whether the company is commercially insolvent so that it is unable to discharge its liabilities. It includes debenture-holders. [1969] 2 Comp L. Any claim for damage and that being an unascertained amount cannot amount to a debt. (n 1) [1116-1118]. if it does not pay the debts within the statutory time limit. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR’S PETITION . a winding up order can be passed on that debt. trustees etc. Hence the doctrine of indoor management can be applied here which asserts that a third party transacting with a company need not be sure of the internal working of the company. This gap was illustrated in Keerat Kaur case31. 28 [1998] 16 SCL 279. SMS Software (P.).Bihari v.T.

(3rd edn. “There is no express provision in the act in the case of a compulsory liquidation that all the powers of a director shall cease.e. 200233. because suspension of their orders derives from the very order they dispute. (n 1) [1120]. 35 [1921] 2 Ch 164. Lord Sterndale held. 1956 but the court makes an order for winding up with due regard to the interests of creditors and shareholders. 36 Ibid. The theory works on the delegation of power from principal (owners) to agent (managers or directors).32 The Companies (Second Amendment) Act. The theory assumes the stakeholders to be in the owning capacity of the company. If the proposition is accepted.” Directors may appeal against the winding-up order. but in fact they do cease.f a date yet to be notified. The question to be seen is as to whether the powers of a company director are transferred to the liquidator after the petition is accepted by the court.34 In re Farrow’s Bank limited35. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa).36 Similar condition can be reflected to Indian context. Corporate Insolvency Law And Practice. 33 Companies (Second Amendment) Act. 34 Edward Bailey & Hugo Groves. 2002 w. This brings forth the principle of transparency and accountability that would be attributed on the liquidator once such an amendment comes into affect. a new section 448 has been added to give certain powers to the tribunal to appoint a liquidator from certain panel of legal professionals as he holds an administrative position and so appointment has to done with due care and caution.An official liquidator presents a petition under section 440 of the Companies Act. 8|Page . The Agency theory of the Corporate governance principle can be incorporated here. But this will again be debatable as to the order of priorities of the debts and dues paid vis-à-vis to those of creditors and workers. The agency problem occurs when the interests of both diverge and there is opportunism on the part of the agent and principal cannot 32 TAXMANN. it means that there is a transfer of the fiduciary duty from the company directors.

prima facie. The facts of the case in brief were that the bank was a secured creditor and since company was unable to pay its debts. 40 Edward Bailey (n 34). This right can be assumed to be synonymous to the fundamental right guaranteed in the constitutional setup of a country where everyone’s has to be given a fair hearing and nobody’s right has to be prejudiced. And the problem may crop up as to the opportunism which a liquidator may get in case of liquidation proceedings from the date of the petition. to stay or dispense with them while any other suit is pending in any court. 39 In re Great Western (Forest of Dean] Coal Consumers’ Company [1882] 21 Ch D 769. Case 1. 9|Page .14.37 Here also there is a transfer to the liquidator. a person who is shown to have a debt which the company does not satisfy has a right ex debito justitiae to a winding-up order. Various provisions of Companies Act.”39 The right to be heard can be the foundational right of any interested stakeholder in the company capital structure and management. However it was quoted. a petition for winding up was sought and at the same time it also filed a civil suit for the realization of money.perfectly monitor upon.40 However right to a winding up petition cannot 37 Mallin Christine A. 2009). The interests of the stakeholders have to be kept in mind and there should be reforms in law as to the auditing of liquidator’s work. 38 (1977) 47 Com. 1956 were taken into account where an exclusive jurisdiction is given to the court before whom the winding up proceeding was pending. Corporate Governance (3rd edn. p. Oxford University Press. RIGHT TO BE HEARD: CONTEXTUALIZED Citing the case of Central Bank of India v Sukhani Mining and Engineering Ltd38. Prima Facie a creditor who has not been paid is entitled to a winding up order ‘ex debito justitiae’ and that he has no right to be refused. The final judgment in this case was the dismissal of the application to delay the proceedings because there was no sufficient evidence whether company was at profit or at loss. right to hear petition for winding up was discussed at detail concerning the jurisdiction and stay of proceedings. “ As against the company I conceive that.

Section 43A 45 contemplates workers' participation in the management of the industry.Ramakrishnan42 held that right to apply for a winding up petition is a creature of statute and hence cannot be waived. But the question still remains whether this could be a viable option for the employees? Do they have a real say in the proceedings? The answer to this is to ensure that the company is not wound up without sufficient cause and dues of the workmen 41 Ibid. interested because what is produced by the enterprise is the result of labour as well as capital. 46 National Textiles Workers’ Union v. their life itself.43 “It is not only the shareholders who have supplied capital who are interested in the enterprise but the workers who supply labour are also equally. s 43A. 1983 SCR (1) 456.. 44 Ibid. But they have a right to be heard as in agreement or in opposition to a petition. the Constitution is openly Socialist. 184. 45 Indian Companies Act 1956. P. While the former invest only a part of their moneys the latter invest their sweat and toil. Union of India and Ors. 184. 43 Democratic Rights v.R. Cas. RIGHT OF OTHER PERSONS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS WORKER’S (EMPLOYEES) PETITIONS The Supreme Court judgment in National Workers’ Union v P.R. [1985] 53 Comp. 10 | P a g e . Cas.”44 After the 42nd Amendment. The Directive Principles of State Policy emphasize the role and interest of the workers.46 Hence on the ground of public interest and social justice they are given a right to be heard even at the time of admission of the petition. 42 [1983] 53 Comp.Ramakrishnan. in fact. There are enactments like the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act and the Industries Regulation and Development Act under whose provisions the activities of a company may be scrutinized in public interest.be an automatic avenue for a contributory since they are not given priority like the secured creditors unless alternative remedies are exhausted41.

O. 47 48 SLP (Civil appeal no. 1952 and The Companies Act. 2642 of 2011). s 529A. Pharmaceuticals Ltd47 the question arose as to what would prevail in case of conflicting provisions of Employees Provident fund Act. then the intention to give preferential rights to the workers or employees under section 529A of the Act52.are paid pari passu with the secured creditors. would be completely frustrated. 49 50 The Insolvecy Act. While in Indian law. (Sept 2004). The chartered Accountant.161. <http://pxvlaw. Abhishek Singh. both are governed by different legislations. 52 Indian Companies Act 1956.com/2011/11/24/epf-to-have-priority-in-case-of-winding-up-supreme-court/> accessed on 24 August 2012. 1985.pdf>accessed on 24 August 2012. 51 Securitisation and Restructuring of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act.L. 1956 governs only corporate insolvency50. This was taken into consideration and section 529A was enacted after the 1985 amendment to the Companies Act. <220. Hence there is a blunder in the law as there is a gap as to the provisions where if a creditor proceeds against the company under SARFAESI or banking institutions do so.227.’ EPF To have a priority in case of winding up: Supreme Court’. 1956 where both of these contained non-obstante clause about the priority of discharging dues to the workers. 2011). Vinod Kothari. 1956 which gave overriding preferential treatment to the workmen along with the secured creditors. There is also tremendous confusion as far as enforcement of security interests versus bankruptcy proceedings are concerned as they are governed by different special legislations like SARFAESI51 etc. It was ruled that the EPF Act will get priority as it was a social legislation and the intention of the legislature also matters to a higher extent. 2002. 11 | P a g e . As the Companies Act. (Nov 24.48 In common law. the insolvency laws49 mainly govern the procedures for winding up of the companies which include corporate as well as individual insolvency. ‘corporate insolvency laws in india’.86/10999p287-291sep04. In the case of EPF Commissioner v.wordpress.

In the case of Bharat General & Textile & Ors v Muir Mills & Ors57. 1993. 1993 and winding up petition filed by the company in the company court were conflicting provisions. In most of the legislations. 1993 is a special legislation and is intended to be adjudicated upon for the recovery of debts and preference given thereto which can be a separate proceeding. including high court decisions like The Bank of Nova Scotia v RPG Transmission Ltd55. ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT: CENTRAL/STATE GOVERNMENT Section 439(g) of the Act56has been introduced vide the Companies (Amendment) Act. Hence both the acts are mutually exclusive. 1956 is for ascertaining the commercial insolvency of the company or on any other grounds on which the company may be ordered to be wound up. 2002 w. On the other hand in the case of Radha Ram 53 Civil Appeal no.PETITIONS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS In Allahabad Bank v.e. 12 | P a g e . the question was whether debt recovery suit filed by such institutions before the debt recovery tribunal under RDB Act54. 2002 where the Central Government has been conferred powers to file a petition for winding up by appointing inspectors if any company is acting against the sovereign. it has been held that it is necessary to see the intention of the legislature with which the acts have been enacted. Canara Bank53. Central Government passed an order under Section 18E of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act of 1951 and thus a winding up petition presented by the appellant company was struck off and government was given powers to give consent to the continuation of the proceedings.f date yet to be notified. However winding up petition filed under the Companies Act. The RDB Act. 55 (2006) 133 CompCas 172 (Delhi). 54 Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. However the role of Government can be summarized through various legislations where it has played a crucial role in determining the proceedings for winding up. 56 Companies (Second Amendment) Act. This is yet to take effect. 2536 of 2000. 57 1968 38 Comp Cas 533.

the consent of the Central Government was not necessary for the winding up of the whole of the company except for that undertaking. Oppression of the minority shareholders which is governed by section 397 of the Act59 is deemed to be a valid ground for initiating proceedings for winding up. s 397. 61 1996 86 Comp Cas 657 CLB. 62 Indian Companies Act 1956. it was held that if any part of a company (herein referred to as industrial undertaking) is taken over by the Government. it is important to note that it is difficult to sustain an application under section 39762on the ground of being prejudicial to public interest as the condition in clause(b) of subsection(2) cannot be satisfied in such case. the concept varying with the time and state of society and its needs. However. it was observed that the expression ‘public interest’ is not capable of precise meaning but it can take colour from the statute in which it occurs.Badri Nath v Amritsar Industrial Undertakings58.R. It emphasizes the idea of the company functioning for the public good. The phrase used in the provision “in a manner prejudicial to public interest” provides that this term is not only an elusive abstraction for the shareholders but also to the public at large. it was observed that the concept of “public interest” takes the company outside the conventional sphere of being a concern in which the shareholders alone are interested. 59 Indian Companies Act 1956. CONSUMER INTEREST AND PUBLIC INTEREST The public interest at large is not only to be seen from the purview of members related to company but also the societal interest at large that may be directly or indirectly affected by the functions of the company.Murty v. reason being that it was under a precarious financial condition or a need to revive a company. Such wide interpretation is to be taken into account as in Kameshwar Singh v State of Bihar60. s 397. as conducting the affairs of a company in a 58 (1977) 79 PLR 387. In N. 13 | P a g e . 60 [1952] SCR 889. Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa61.

Vol. too much of a socialistic framework is being provided to the company which may affect the interests of creditors who should and must be sole priority of the economic transactions. depositors. Above all. The interests of ‘other persons’ are not prejudiced but it may become a burden for the creditors to prove a bonafide dispute on the debt. Economic and Political Weekly. With the inclusion of sections like 529A. 52. etc.manner prejudicial to public interest cannot be a just and equitable ground for ordering the winding up of the company. 64 Thanjavur. such as payment to small-scale industries for supplies. ranking above the rights of the secured creditors64. should by virtue of law have prior charge on the assets of the company. 14 | P a g e . the researcher has come to a conclusion that very high amount of judicial discretion is vested upon the courts to hear the petitions related to the persons who have not been given explicit mention in the statute regarding the admissibility of their petitions.legalindia.’ Companies Act amendment Bill: Corporate regulation in reverse gear’. (Dec. small creditors. workers' dues.in/winding-up-of- a-company> accessed on 3 October 2012. Although the interests of the workers and such other entities is favoured with the presence of other special welfare legislations. 22. the statutory requirements and case. Unless such a mandatory provision is made. There is a need to give a shock to financing institutions and banks who are quite happy to retain their first charge on properties without bothering about the fate of others. unless it should be considered illegal or opposed to public policy. (June 2011) retrieved from < http://www. Certain types of defaults to the creditors of companies. No. 26. major institutions and banks would not even bother to find out the real state of affairs in regard to smaller creditors. the ignored elements in the process may be the small creditors.laws.63 CONCLUSION After detailed analysis about the winding up petitions and the procedures followed. it becomes difficult for the liquidator to distribute realized assets of a company. ‘Winding up of a Company’. 63 Tripti Mitra. 1987).

New Delhi. retrieved from (http://heinonline. (nov 14.86/10999p287-291sep04.161. 15 | P a g e in India’. ‘Insolvency Law’.(2008) retrieved from . ‘Scramble of Creditors’. The chartered Accountant retrieved from 220.net/Article/Winding_up_petitions_and_disputed_claims_of_interest__ _Part_2/.com/2011/11/24/epf-to-have-priorityin-case-of-winding-up-supreme-court/.( Nov 24. ‘Corporate Insolvency Laws www. retrieved from http://heinonline.part 2.  Singh Abhishek.co.227. 2011) retrieved from http://pxvlaw.mylaw. (1987) 22 Wake Forest L.com/articles/corin. The principles of corporate governance need to be interwoven in the procedures followed by the court and there should be proper disclosures with proper intervention of the Government. ‘The Statutory Protection of Minority Shareholders in United Kingdom’. The winding up proceedings to be tried by a tribunal which is an amendment yet to come into effect.htm. Rev.org)  Kothari Vinod.( sept 2004). will make the proceedings speedier thus preventing the delay in justice.in/india/news/m-j-antony-scramblecreditors/455565/. 2011) retrieved from http://www. (Nov 16.pdf  Narayan Adithya.b-s. Business Standard.org  Furey Nigel.(2004) 5 SAL Ann. Rev.’corporate insolvency laws in india’.  Beng Eng Lee.wordpress.  Bagai Rohan.legalservicesindia. BIBLIOGRAPHY ARTICLES REFERRED  Antony M J . 81 1987. retrieved from www. 2011).’Winding up petitions and disputed claims of interest. ‘EPF To have a priority in case of winding up: Supreme Court’.The recommendations of the Eradi Committee need to be implemented regarding the reduction of burden from the official liquidator and not giving him too much of administrative powers in lieu of statutory powers.

Company Law and Practice (16th edn. [1952] SCR 889.  Majumdar A K and Kapoor G K. 2536 of 2000. 52. ‘Winding up of a Company’. Central Bank of India v Sukhani Mining and Engineering Ltd. Ltd. 728. [1991] 70 Comp. (2006) 133 CompCas 172 (Delhi). Oxford University Press. ‘Winding up of a company: A faster recourse for repayment of debt’. In re Great Western (Forest of Dean] Coal Consumers’ Company [1882] 21 Ch D 769. No.com/. 22. Singh Sumita. In re India Electric Works. 1987). Ebrahimi v. A Guide To Companies Act. Westbourne Galleries Ltd. http://www.legalindia. 1973 A. Corporate Governance (3rd edn. 2642 of 2011). In re Farrow’s Bank limited.T. Re. (3rd edn.Ltd Dabra v Shyam Sharan Gupta and Co. TAXMANN PUBLICATIONS 2011). SMS Software (P. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa).L. 2010). Bolton Engineering Co. [1921] 2 Ch 164.). SLP (Civil appeal no. 360 (1972). ‘Companies Act amendment Bill: Corporate regulation in reverse gear’ . Bharat General & Textile & Ors v Muir Mills & Ors. EPF Commissioner v. Vol.C. Union of India and Ors. [1977] 47 Comp Cas 1.Bihari v. (Dec 26.in/winding-up-of-a-company (June 2011) retrieved from BOOKS REFERRED  Bailey Edward & G Hugo. 2009). [1969] 2 Comp L. Gwalior Sugar Co.  Christine Mallin. Cas. Democratic Rights v. Civil Appeal No.L. of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Ltd./Winding-Up-of-a-Company-A-FasterRecourse-  Thajnavur.  Ramaiya A. (1956) 1 All ER 799.) Ltd. [2005] 59 SCL 602 (Kar. H.  Tripti Mitra.. Canara Bank. Corporate Insolvency Law And Practice. Dr.Vanitha K. 1983 SCR (1) 456. Kameshwar Singh v State of Bihar. (17th edn.Economic and Political Weekly. 1968 38 Comp Cas 533. CASES REFERRED                Allahabad Bank v. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa. 169.( April.asialaw. Bank of Nova Scotia v RPG Transmission Ltd. 16 | P a g e . Keerat Kaur v Patiala Exhibition. O. 2008) retrieved from www.. AIR 1969 MP 74..

Re Othery Construction Co. (P.R. [1898] 1 Ch 122. (1942) 2 All ER 552. (1977) 79 PLR 387. P. National Textiles Workers’ Union v P. National Textiles Workers’ Union v. 184. AIR 1925 Mad. 489.  R. R. Re Peveril Gold mines Ltd. Re Home Remedies Ltd.S. Cas.Indistries v Indo Cap.    N. 1996 86 Comp Cas 657 CLB.Ramakrishnan. 17 | P a g e .Murty v. Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa.Ramakrishnan.R. [1985] 53 Comp. [1966] 1 All ER 145.Sabapathy Rao v Sabapathy Press Ltd.R.) Ltd. [1983] 53 Comp Cas 184. [1998] 16 SCL 279.     Radha Ram Badri Nath v Amritsar Industrial Undertakings.