Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd., resumes his submissions. He refers to order dated 20th February, 2014 by which the Company Court did not allow prayer for withdrawal of money deposited in court, until pending matters were heard out and the competence of the applicant (being the company through persons in control thereof) to obtain the money is decided in its favour. By that order the said Court also was of the view that by virtue of the winding up order the proceedings have acquired a representative character.
(2.) He submits, appeal was preferred by the company which resulted in judgement dated 14th August, 2014. He draws attention to the recital of background of the case in the said judgement and emphasises the finding thereupon that even the issue as to whether the winding up proceeding against the said company was permanently stayed or not, remained unanswered in the Special Leave Petition [the judgement referred being Radheshyam Ajitsaria (supra)]. He submits, though by the judgement the interlocutory order was affirmed, yet the Appeal Court, according to him, found that no order passed under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be produced by the company in spite of repeated insistence. He relies on the following portion in the said judgement:- "....In this regard, it is worth mentioning here that apart from mentioning here that apart from mentioning that the Company is a going concern and the winding up proceeding against the said company has been permanently stayed under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgement dated 24th May, 2006 passed in the Civil Appeals No. 4101-4103 of 2004, the order passed by the Company Court and/or any other competent Court staying the winding up proceeding against the said company permanently under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956, could not be produced before this Court by the appellant/petitioner in spite of repeated insistence of this Court. An order of permanent stay of the winding up proceeding is a judicial order to be passed by the Company court under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 which the appellant/petitioner has failed to produce before this Court. "
(3.) He next refers to judgement dated 12th March, 2015 in, inter alia, Civil Appeal nos.2814-2815 of 2015 (Baranagar Jute Factory PLC v. Shreekishan Omprakash and Anr.) . He submits, in this appeal preferred by the persons claiming to be in control of the company and urging that the winding up proceeding in respect of it stands permanently stayed, obtained a direction that the Company Judge before whom all applications are pending should dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, such being the opinion of the Supreme Court on the facts and circumstances. He submits, this judgement came on 12th March, 2015 and such direction could not have been made by the Supreme Court if it itself had earlier decided that the winding up proceeding in respect of the company stood permanently stayed. He then reiterates submissions made earlier regarding the same persons having had applied for permanent stay of winding up of the company which applications are still pending.;