ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) The Court : Mr. Jishnu Saha, learned senior advocate, resumes his submissions. He relies on an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court and two judgments of Division Benches, also of this Court. By order dated 7th May, 2012 passed in several company petitions and applications that can be found on SCC Online as Bharat Margarine Ltd. (In Liqn.) [2012] SCC Online Cal 4416, he submits, the learned Single Judge had directed that there be advertisements published regarding application for stay of winding up in the same newspapers in which the creditor's winding up petition had been advertised. This is necessary to be done in cases of applications made for the purpose of stay of winding up under section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956. The provision requires the Court to have before it the application, proof and satisfaction and any order made under this section should forthwith be forwarded by the company or otherwise as may be prescribed, to the Registrar who shall make a minute of the order in his books relating to the company. It is his submission that none of the above had been done in this case.
(2.) He then relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dabriwala Vanijya Udyog Ltd. vs. Smt. Alka Dalmia & Anr ., reported in [2010] 154 Company Cases 131. He submits, the principles that should be borne in mind by the Court exercising discretion for stay under section 466 of the Act had been stated therein. He next relies on a judgement of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sonajuli Tea & Industries Ltd. vs. Ashkaran Chatter Singh & Ors ., reported in [1982] 52 Company Cases 568, to paragraph 16 therein to submit that to justify an order under section 466 of the Act, the requirements of the said section have to be complied with and necessary averments must also be there in the petition.
(3.) On facts he submits, there was an application made for stay of the winding up proceedings in which an interim order dated 15th September, 1988 was passed. That order was carried in appeal and by interim order dated 22nd September, 1988, inter alia, the winding up proceedings was directed to remain stayed for six months for the time being. He then refers to order dated 19th December, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in dealing with several applications made for stay of winding up proceedings. He points out the recital in the said order regarding what had happened after the said appeal, to culminate in the directions given in those applications, most of which were dismissed, to the effect that the Special Officers appointed stood discharged and the winding up proceedings be taken up by Official Liquidator and finalized in accordance with law.;