Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri N. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent -company and Shri Raj Nath N. Shukla appearing for the official liquidator, U.P. at Allahabad. Shri S. K. Saxena, official liquidator is present in the court.
(2.) ON the recommendation of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction the respondent -company M/s. Shree Dhruve Flour and Food Products Ltd., was wound up by this court on August 22, 2005. The respondent -company filed an application to recall the winding up order on the ground that it has settled the entire dues to be paid to the secured creditors namely State Bank of India and PICUP from the financial resources generated by the ex -directors, who have filed their affidavit stating that they will not claim this amount from the company. Sri Srivastava further submits that the respondent -company has no further liabilities towards any other secured or unsecured creditors and thus the winding up order deserves to be recalled. In the official liquidator's report No. 14 of 2006, filed through Shri Rajnath N. Shukla, advocate it is stated that in pursuance of the orders passed by this court winding up by the respondent -company notices were issued to the ex -directors under Sections 454 and 456 of the Companies Act, 1956, to hand over the charge of the assets and record and to file statement of affairs. Shri R. P. Pandey, the director of the company gave a letter addressed to the official liquidator dated December 23, 2005, stating that the company has liquidated the entire dues of State Bank of India and PICUP and that the recall application is pending and in the circumstances they prayed for certain time to comply with the direction.
(3.) THE Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, had received a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, by the company itself on the basis of its audited balance -sheet as on March 31, 1993, with paid up capital of Rs. 39.20 lakhs. The company had accumulated losses of Rs. 155.79 lakhs. It employed less than 50 workers. IDBI was appointed as operating agency and efforts for rehabilitation were undertaken. After a number of hearings the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction was of the opinion that the promoters were admittedly not serious/resourceful to revive the company. The company's reliability was also under doubt and there was no rehabilitation process of the finance on fully tied up by the Board.;