Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Raval Papers Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 12, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484960

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Company Application No. 12 of 2000
Subject
SICA

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
SICA
Acts & sections
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 20(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Raval Papers Ltd.

Legal References

Acts
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 20(1)
Reported In
[2002]39SCL122(All)

Excerpt

- sunil ambwani, j.1. this company application was registered upon receipt of the opinion of the bifr under section 20(1) of the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985. notices were issued to the company by an order dated 10-8-2001. the notices were sent by the office on 22-8-2001 fixing the date of hearing to be on 10-9-2001. the notices returned back with the endorsement that the company is lying closed dated 24-8-2001. the court found that no one appeared for the company before the board on the last date of hearing. in paragraph 3 of the order, the board has mentioned that even in the last hearing on 13-7-2000 the company was not represented.2. a perusal of the order shows that the company was declared sick by the board on 10-8-2001 and the punjab national bank was appointed as operating agency. the company submitted a sketchy proposal in december, 1998 and on the hearing day 13-7-2000 the board observed that directors who had, promoted the company, were no longer interested or capable of running it. the picup, punjab national bank and irbi expressed no objections for winding up of the company. the board confirmed that the company will not be able to turn its net worth positive, and that it is just fair and in public interest to wind up the company.3. no one has filed any objection and as such considering the opinion of the board, the company is directed to be wound up. the official liquidator u.p. is appointed as liquidator of company. he shall take over possession of assets and account of the company (in liquidation) and shall issue notice to the directors and officers of the company to file statement of affairs in accordance with the provision of the companies act, 1956, and shall submit a report to the court.4. shri anurag khanna appeared for iccup and has no objection to winding up the company.

Full Judgment

Sunil Ambwani, J.

1. This company application was registered upon receipt of the opinion of the BIFR under Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Notices were issued to the company by an order dated 10-8-2001. The notices were sent by the office on 22-8-2001 fixing the date of hearing to be on 10-9-2001. The notices returned back with the endorsement that the company is lying closed dated 24-8-2001. The Court found that no one appeared for the company before the Board on the last date of hearing. In paragraph 3 of the order, the Board has mentioned that even in the last hearing on 13-7-2000 the company was not represented.

2. A perusal of the order shows that the company was declared sick by the Board on 10-8-2001 and the Punjab National Bank was appointed as operating agency. The company submitted a sketchy proposal in December, 1998 and on the hearing day 13-7-2000 the Board observed that Directors who had, promoted the company, were no longer interested or capable of running it. The PICUP, Punjab National Bank and IRBI expressed no objections for winding up of the company. The Board confirmed that the company will not be able to turn its net worth positive, and that it is just fair and in public interest to wind up the company.

3. No one has filed any objection and as such considering the opinion of the Board, the company is directed to be wound up. The Official Liquidator U.P. is appointed as Liquidator of company. He shall take over possession of assets and account of the company (in liquidation) and shall issue notice to the directors and officers of the company to file statement of affairs in accordance with the provision of the Companies Act, 1956, and shall submit a report to the Court.

4. Shri Anurag Khanna appeared for ICCUP and has no objection to winding up the company.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial