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

(Key Words: Winding up, Petition, Company, 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, 1956 and the procedure
as given in the Companies (court) rules, 1959. 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. However in case of India, Insolvency law is not dealt with in this project as
there is some difference between both the concepts. Indian corporate law has evolved mostly
from the common law jurisprudence and winding up procedures are much similar, hence a
critical evaluation of the reforms and development of the principles of legal theory relating to
winding up has been taken into account.
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.
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,
creditors ( secured and unsecured) and managers, 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 workers union or unregistered
members. 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--vis courts.
RESEARCH QUESTION

The Insolvency Act, 1985.

The Companies Act, 2006.

2|Page

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

 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, SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS TO BE
HEARD.
Principle: If a company is solvent, the wishes of the contributories as the persons chiefly
interested in the assets, carry most weight, but if the company is insolvent, it is the wishes of
creditors.5
CONTRIBUTORYS AND CREDITORS 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, and includes
the holder of any shares which are fully paid up; and for the purposes of all proceedings for
determining, and all proceedings prior to the final determination of, the persons who are to be
deemed contributories, includes any person alleged to be a contributory.6 He may petition if the

Palmers Company Law, (19th edn,Stevens & sons publisher,p.385) as cited in TAXMANN(n 1).

Indian Companies Act 1956, s 428.

3|Page

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).7
Hence it may be used synonymously with the shareholders. However non-registered contributory
does not come within the meaning of member. 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.8
Buckley J. has held: It remains a rule of this court that where a fully paid shareholder presents a
petition for compulsory winding up, he must show prima facie that there will be availability of
assets for distribution amongst 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. 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, it is debatable. However interests of creditors are to be prioritized and left
on the discretion of courts. This brings a question on the legitimate expectation of the
stakeholders. However in common law, special circumstances exist when contributories are
given preference11 , even depending on facts.12
The right to present a petition can be called a class right, but it may be a matter of doubt whether
a creditor can contract out of this right. It is held in common law that if a shareholder makes such

Indian Companies Act 1956, s 433(d).

A Ramaiya, A Guide To Companies Act, (17th edn, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, p.4014, 2010).

Re Othery Construction Co. [1966] 1 All ER 145.

10

Indian Companies Act 1956, s 439(3).

11

Re Home Remedies Ltd. (1942) 2 All ER 552; Re Macrae (P&J) Ltd, (1961) 1 All ER 302 as cited in

TAXMANN(n 1).
12

A Ramaiya(n 8) (4025).

4|Page

a contract, it is against the statute and so it is void. However the doubt remains as to the position
of a creditor in this regard13.
NON-MEMBER SHAREHOLDERS.
The landmark judgment of Supreme Court Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. v. Chloro
Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd.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. 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.16
The principle behind such judgments is that no person should be able to wreck the company
without registering himself as a member.17 In Common law similar rulings have been given in
relation to the interpretation. H.L. Bolton Engineering Co. Ltd. Re.18the Chancery Court held that
Section 224(1) of the Companies Act, 1948 was designed to provide an 'exhaustive list' of those
who are entitled to present a petition for compulsory winding-up. Even in case of Gattopardo,
Ltd. Re19, similar judgment was given. However in chapter 6, section 519 of the Companies Act,
1985 it says that the original allottee need not be a registered member who can present a
petition.20 Thus the common law has left much to judicial discretion.
Even in the case of Gwalior Sugar Co.Ltd Dabra v Shyam Sharan Gupta and Co.21,Shyamsaran
Gupta (respondent) made an application for winding up of the company on the ground that the
13

Re Peveril Gold mines Ltd. [1898] 1 Ch 122.

14

2006 (3) BomCR 119.

15

Indian Companies Act 1956.

16

Severn trent Case (n 13).

17

Palmers (n 5).

18

(1956) 1 All ER 799 ;(1956) 2 WLR 844 : 1956 Ch 577.

19

, (1969) 2 All ER 344;(1969) 1 WLR 619.

20

Nigel Furey ,The Statutory Protection of Minority Shareholders in United Kingdom ,(1987) 22 Wake Forest L.

Rev. 81, <http://heinonline.org>accessed on 25 August 2012.

21

AIR 1969 MP 74.

5|Page

company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 433(e) of the Companies Act,
1956. When the petition for winding up was advertised under Rule 9922 of the Companies
(Court) Rules, 1959, the Gwalior Sugar Co, Ltd., Dabra applied for leave to intervene, as it
desired to oppose the petition. Its application was rejected on the ground that the intervener is
neither a creditor, nor a contributory, nor does it come within the expression "other person
desirous of supporting or opposing the making of an order on the said petition".23 Hence the law
is settled on this issue which can have a negative connotation on the grounds of equity.
OPPRESSION
The common law judicial development of minority rights was the 1972 decision of the House of
Lords in Ebrahimi v. Westbourne Galleries Ltd24 This decision granted a just and equitable
winding up order in circumstances when the majority shareholders, in removing a director from
office, had acted both lawfully and constitutionally. The House of Lords recognized that in many
companies there are underlying expectations regarding the exercise of legal and constitutional
rights which, if unfulfilled, entitle a shareholder-petitioner to have the company wound up.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.
Similar legislations have existed in India26. However a conflict arises in between the two
provisions when the petition has been filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act,
1956 (oppression and mismanagement), then the winding up petition will not be maintainable.
Hence the courts deem to give the order on the basis of absence of an efficacious remedy
available.

22

Companies (Court) Rules 1959, s 99 states Subject to any directions of the Court, the petition shall be advertised

within the time and in the manner provided by rule 24 of these rules. The advertisement shall be in Form No. 48.
23

Companies (Court) Rules 1959, Form No.48.

24

1973 A.C. 360 (1972).

25

Nigel Furey, (n 20).

26

R.Sabapathy Rao v Sabapathy Press Ltd. AIR 1925 Mad. 489.

6|Page

A creditors petition has to be heard in the court on the ground that the company is unable its
debts27. It includes debenture-holders, trustees etc. Court has to see whether the company is
commercially insolvent so that it is unable to discharge its liabilities.
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. In R.S.Indistries v Indo Cap. (P.) Ltd.28 it was held
that where a part of a debt is undisputed, a winding up order can be passed on that debt. Any
claim for damage and that being an unascertained amount cannot amount to a debt.29 Even nonpayment of the dividend to the shareholder makes him the creditor.30
The presumption in section 434 which enumerates when a company is deemed unable to pay its
debts, remains a grey area as to whether company is insolvent, if it does not pay the debts within
the statutory time limit. This makes the court give an order for a declaration of insolvency
without going to the core of the situation.
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. There have to be circumstances to
show the commercial insolvency of the company. This gap was illustrated in Keerat Kaur case31,
where two factions were holding 50% shares each of a company and it being a family owned
company, a receiver was appointed by one of the factions and accounts were misinterpreted
bearing a loss to the creditors. 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. Hence relief should be granted to such creditors even by way of
separate proceedings.
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS PETITION - APPLICABILITY OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLE
27

In re India Electric Works, [1969] 2 Comp L.T. 169.

28

[1998] 16 SCL 279.

29

Dr.Vanitha K.Bihari v. SMS Software (P.) Ltd, [2005] 59 SCL 602 (Kar.).

30

TAXMANN, (n 1) [1116-1118].

31

Keerat Kaur v Patiala Exhibition, [1991] 70 Comp. Cas. 728.

7|Page

An official liquidator presents a petition under section 440 of the Companies Act, 1956 but the
court makes an order for winding up with due regard to the interests of creditors and
shareholders.32
The Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 200233, 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.
But this will again be debatable as to the order of priorities of the debts and dues paid vis--vis to
those of creditors and workers. This brings forth the principle of transparency and accountability
that would be attributed on the liquidator once such an amendment comes into affect.
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 Farrows Bank limited35, Lord
Sterndale held, There is no express provision in the act in the case of a compulsory liquidation
that all the powers of a director shall cease, but in fact they do cease. Directors may appeal
against the winding-up order, because suspension of their orders derives from the very order they
dispute.36
Similar condition can be reflected to Indian context. If the proposition is accepted, it means that
there is a transfer of the fiduciary duty from the company directors. The Agency theory of the
Corporate governance principle can be incorporated here. The theory works on the delegation of
power from principal (owners) to agent (managers or directors). The theory assumes the
stakeholders to be in the owning capacity of the company. 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, (n 1) [1120].

33

Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 w.e.f a date yet to be notified.

34

Edward Bailey & Hugo Groves, Corporate Insolvency Law And Practice, (3rd edn, Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Wadhwa).
35

[1921] 2 Ch 164.

36

Ibid.

8|Page

perfectly monitor upon.37 Here also there is a transfer to the liquidator. 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. The interests of the stakeholders have to be kept in mind and there should
be reforms in law as to the auditing of liquidators work.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD: CONTEXTUALIZED
Citing the case of Central Bank of India v Sukhani Mining and Engineering Ltd38, right to hear
petition for winding up was discussed at detail concerning the jurisdiction and stay of
proceedings. The facts of the case in brief were that the bank was a secured creditor and since
company was unable to pay its debts, a petition for winding up was sought and at the same time
it also filed a civil suit for the realization of money. Various provisions of Companies Act, 1956
were taken into account where an exclusive jurisdiction is given to the court before whom the
winding up proceeding was pending, to stay or dispense with them while any other suit is
pending in any court. 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. However it was quoted, As against the company I conceive that, prima facie, 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.39
The right to be heard can be the foundational right of any interested stakeholder in the company
capital structure and management. This right can be assumed to be synonymous to the
fundamental right guaranteed in the constitutional setup of a country where everyones has to be
given a fair hearing and nobodys right has to be prejudiced.
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.40 However right to a winding up petition cannot

37

Mallin Christine A, Corporate Governance (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2009), p.14.

38

(1977) 47 Com. Case 1.

39

In re Great Western (Forest of Dean] Coal Consumers Company [1882] 21 Ch D 769.

40

Edward Bailey (n 34).

9|Page

be an automatic avenue for a contributory since they are not given priority like the secured
creditors unless alternative remedies are exhausted41.
RIGHT OF OTHER PERSONS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
WORKERS (EMPLOYEES) PETITIONS
The Supreme Court judgment in National Workers Union v P.R.Ramakrishnan42 held that right
to apply for a winding up petition is a creature of statute and hence cannot be waived. But they
have a right to be heard as in agreement or in opposition to a petition.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, interested because what is produced by the
enterprise is the result of labour as well as capital. While the former invest only a part of their
moneys the latter invest their sweat and toil; in fact, their life itself.44
After the 42nd Amendment, the Constitution is openly Socialist. The Directive Principles of
State Policy emphasize the role and interest of the workers. Section 43A 45 contemplates workers'
participation in the management of the industry. 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.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. 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.

42

[1983] 53 Comp. Cas. 184.

43

Democratic Rights v. Union of India and Ors., 1983 SCR (1) 456.

44

Ibid.

45

Indian Companies Act 1956, s 43A.

46

National Textiles Workers Union v. P.R.Ramakrishnan, [1985] 53 Comp. Cas. 184.

10 | P a g e

are paid pari passu with the secured creditors. This was taken into consideration and section
529A was enacted after the 1985 amendment to the Companies Act, 1956 which gave overriding
preferential treatment to the workmen along with the secured creditors. In the case of EPF
Commissioner v. O.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd47 the question arose as to what would prevail in case
of conflicting provisions of Employees Provident fund Act, 1952 and The Companies Act, 1956
where both of these contained non-obstante clause about the priority of discharging dues to the
workers. 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.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. While in Indian law, both
are governed by different legislations. As the Companies Act, 1956 governs only corporate
insolvency50. 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.
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, then the intention
to give preferential rights to the workers or employees under section 529A of the Act52, would be
completely frustrated.

47

48

SLP (Civil appeal no. 2642 of 2011).

Abhishek Singh, EPF To have a priority in case of winding up: Supreme Court, (Nov 24, 2011),

<http://pxvlaw.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/epf-to-have-priority-in-case-of-winding-up-supreme-court/> accessed on
24 August 2012.
49

50

The Insolvecy Act, 1985.

Vinod Kothari, corporate insolvency laws in india, (Sept 2004), The chartered Accountant.

<220.227.161.86/10999p287-291sep04.pdf>accessed on 24 August 2012.

51

Securitisation and Restructuring of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002.

52

Indian Companies Act 1956, s 529A.

11 | P a g e

PETITIONS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

In Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank53, the question was whether debt recovery suit filed by such
institutions before the debt recovery tribunal under RDB Act54, 1993 and winding up petition
filed by the company in the company court were conflicting provisions. In most of the
legislations, including high court decisions like The Bank of Nova Scotia v RPG Transmission
Ltd55, it has been held that it is necessary to see the intention of the legislature with which the
acts have been enacted. The RDB Act, 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. However winding up petition filed under the Companies Act, 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. Hence both the acts are mutually exclusive.
ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT: CENTRAL/STATE GOVERNMENT
Section 439(g) of the Act56has been introduced vide the Companies (Amendment) Act, 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. This is yet to take effect.
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. In the case of Bharat
General & Textile & Ors v Muir Mills & Ors57, 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. On the other hand in the case of Radha Ram

53

Civil Appeal no. 2536 of 2000.

54

Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

55

(2006) 133 CompCas 172 (Delhi).

56

Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 w.e.f date yet to be notified.

57

1968 38 Comp Cas 533.

12 | P a g e

Badri Nath v Amritsar Industrial Undertakings58, it was held that if any part of a company
(herein referred to as industrial undertaking) is taken over by the Government, reason being that
it was under a precarious financial condition or a need to revive a company, the consent of the
Central Government was not necessary for the winding up of the whole of the company except
for that undertaking.
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.
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. 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. Such wide interpretation is to be
taken into account as in Kameshwar Singh v State of Bihar60, 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, the concept varying with the time and state of society and its needs. In N.R.Murty v.
Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa61, 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. It emphasizes the idea of the company functioning for the
public good. However, 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, as conducting the affairs of a company in a

58

(1977) 79 PLR 387.

59

Indian Companies Act 1956, s 397.

60

[1952] SCR 889.

61

1996 86 Comp Cas 657 CLB.

62

Indian Companies Act 1956, s 397.

13 | P a g e

manner prejudicial to public interest cannot be a just and equitable ground for ordering the
winding up of the company, unless it should be considered illegal or opposed to public policy.63
CONCLUSION
After detailed analysis about the winding up petitions and the procedures followed, the statutory
requirements and case- laws, 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.
Although the interests of the workers and such other entities is favoured with the presence of
other special welfare legislations, it becomes difficult for the liquidator to distribute realized
assets of a company.
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. With the inclusion of sections like 529A, 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.
Above all, the ignored elements in the process may be the small creditors. 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. Certain types of defaults to the creditors of
companies, such as payment to small-scale industries for supplies, depositors, small creditors,
workers' dues, etc, should by virtue of law have prior charge on the assets of the company,
ranking above the rights of the secured creditors64. Unless such a mandatory provision is made,
major institutions and banks would not even bother to find out the real state of affairs in regard to
smaller creditors.

63

Tripti Mitra, Winding up of a Company, (June 2011) retrieved from < http://www.legalindia.in/winding-up-of-

a-company> accessed on 3 October 2012.

64

Thanjavur, Companies Act amendment Bill: Corporate regulation in reverse gear, (Dec. 26, 1987), Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol. 22, No. 52.

14 | P a g e

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. The winding up proceedings to be tried by a tribunal which is an
amendment yet to come into effect, will make the proceedings speedier thus preventing the delay
in justice.
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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARTICLES REFERRED

Antony M J , Scramble of Creditors, Business Standard, New Delhi, (Nov 16, 2011).
retrieved from www.b-s.co.in/india/news/m-j-antony-scramblecreditors/455565/.

Bagai Rohan, Corporate Insolvency Laws

www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/corin.htm.

Beng Eng Lee, Insolvency Law,(2004) 5 SAL Ann. Rev. retrieved from
http://heinonline.org

Furey Nigel, The Statutory Protection of Minority Shareholders in United Kingdom,

(1987) 22 Wake Forest L. Rev. 81 1987, retrieved from (http://heinonline.org)

Kothari Vinod,corporate insolvency laws in india,( sept 2004), The chartered

Accountant retrieved from 220.227.161.86/10999p287-291sep04.pdf

Narayan Adithya,Winding up petitions and disputed claims of interest- part 2, (nov 14,
2011)
retrieved
from
http://www.mylaw.net/Article/Winding_up_petitions_and_disputed_claims_of_interest__
_Part_2/.

Singh Abhishek, EPF To have a priority in case of winding up: Supreme Court,( Nov
24, 2011) retrieved from http://pxvlaw.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/epf-to-have-priorityin-case-of-winding-up-supreme-court/.

15 | P a g e

in

India,(2008)

retrieved

from

Singh Sumita, Winding up of a company: A faster recourse for repayment of debt,(

April, 2008) retrieved from www.asialaw.com/.../Winding-Up-of-a-Company-A-FasterRecourse-

Thajnavur, Companies Act amendment Bill: Corporate regulation in reverse gear , (Dec
26, 1987),Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 22, No. 52.

Tripti Mitra, Winding up of a Company,

http://www.legalindia.in/winding-up-of-a-company

(June

2011)

retrieved

from

BOOKS REFERRED

Bailey Edward & G Hugo, Corporate Insolvency Law And Practice, (3rd edn, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa).

Christine Mallin, Corporate Governance (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2009).

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

Ramaiya A, A Guide To Companies Act, (17th edn, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
2010).

CASES REFERRED

Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank, Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2000.

Bank of Nova Scotia v RPG Transmission Ltd, (2006) 133 CompCas 172 (Delhi).
Bharat General & Textile & Ors v Muir Mills & Ors, 1968 38 Comp Cas 533.
Central Bank of India v Sukhani Mining and Engineering Ltd, [1977] 47 Comp Cas 1.
Democratic Rights v. Union of India and Ors, 1983 SCR (1) 456.
Dr.Vanitha K.Bihari v. SMS Software (P.) Ltd, [2005] 59 SCL 602 (Kar.).
Ebrahimi v. Westbourne Galleries Ltd, 1973 A.C. 360 (1972).
EPF Commissioner v. O.L. of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Ltd, SLP (Civil appeal no. 2642 of
2011).
Gwalior Sugar Co.Ltd Dabra v Shyam Sharan Gupta and Co, AIR 1969 MP 74.
H.L. Bolton Engineering Co. Ltd. Re, (1956) 1 All ER 799.
In re Farrows Bank limited, [1921] 2 Ch 164.
In re Great Western (Forest of Dean] Coal Consumers Company [1882] 21 Ch D 769.
In re India Electric Works, [1969] 2 Comp L.T. 169.
Kameshwar Singh v State of Bihar, [1952] SCR 889.
Keerat Kaur v Patiala Exhibition, [1991] 70 Comp. Cas. 728.

16 | P a g e

N.R.Murty v. Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa, 1996 86 Comp Cas 657

CLB.
National Textiles Workers Union v P.R.Ramakrishnan, [1983] 53 Comp Cas 184.
National Textiles Workers Union v. P.R.Ramakrishnan, [1985] 53 Comp. Cas. 184.
R.S.Indistries v Indo Cap. (P.) Ltd, [1998] 16 SCL 279.

R.Sabapathy Rao v Sabapathy Press Ltd. AIR 1925 Mad. 489.

Radha Ram Badri Nath v Amritsar Industrial Undertakings, (1977) 79 PLR 387.
Re Home Remedies Ltd. (1942) 2 All ER 552.
Re Othery Construction Co. [1966] 1 All ER 145.
Re Peveril Gold mines Ltd. [1898] 1 Ch 122.

17 | P a g e