Judgment:
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This appeal filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, is directed against order dated 17-4-2009, passed by the learned Company Judge, dismissing the petition for winding up, which was registered in this Court on the recommendation made by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for brevity, 'B1FR') in pursuance of its order dated 29-8-2005 (A-5). The learned Company Judge has declined to pass the order of winding up because during the pendency of the Company Petition for winding up, the only secured creditor, namely, State Bank of India, entered into a compromise and the appellant-company had made payment of Rs. 63 lakhs on 15-5-2006. According to Clause 1 of the compromise deed, it has been stated that even apart from Rs. 63 lakhs, the State Bank of India would also be entitled to Rs. 12 lakhs, which represented the amount held on no lien account out of the sale proceeds of plant and machinery of the appellant-company. The learned Company Judge has also allowed Company Application No. 144 of 2008 filed by the State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 12 lakhs retained by it under a no lien account and the money has, accordingly, been released. The only remaining claimant against the appellant-company is the Punjab State Electricity Board, which has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,59,340 and a suit in that regard is pending. Learned Company Judge has taken the view that the claim of the only secured creditor-State Bank of India has been satisfied and the amount payable to the Punjab State Electricity Board has not yet fructified into any decree. It has been left open to the Punjab State Electricity Board to take such action for recovery as permissible by law.
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant-company and perusing the paper book with his able assistance we are of the considered view that the recommendation of the BIFR, in the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal, would not cause any obligation on the Company Court to order winding up. The subsequent event of the instant case as revealed in the order passed by the learned Company Judge shows that there was no necessity felt to order winding up of the appellant-company, in asmuch as, the dues of the only secured creditor stood satisfied. It is well-settled that the recommendation of the BIFR to wind up a company, are not binding on the Company Court and it is free to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances and then take a view. For the aforesaid proposition reliance can be placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of V.R. Ramaraju v. Union of India [1997] 89 Comp. Cas. 609. It is true that the Company Court should take into consideration the recommendation made by an expert body like BIFR, yet in a case of the nature one in hand, it may not be necessary to discuss every part of the recommendation made by BIFR, especially when the subsequent event shows that the claim of the only secured creditor stood satisfied and the electricity dues of the Punjab State Electricity Board were yet to be concretised as no decree of the civil suit has come into play. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal does not warrant admission and the view taken by the learned Company Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
Dismissed.