Page 63 - Corporate_Professional_Today
P. 63
Weekly reVieW
A transaction would be an ‘attempted suspicious passed by Adjudicating Authority rejecting
transaction’ if same was formally initiated said application and imposing penalty under
but abandoned/aborted on account of some section 65 was to be set aside.
intervening factors.
Application under rehabilitation
Transfer of shares without pass- scheme by sick company wouldn’t
ing board’s resolution by company be ground to defer winding up
amounts to oppression and misman- order: HC
agement: NCLT
Board For Industrial & Financial Reconstruction
AAR KAY Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. A.P. Refinery v. Managing Director [2018] 89 taxmann.com
(P.) Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 291 (NCLT 13 (Guj.)
- Chd.)
Where BIFR rendered its opinion for winding
Where shares of company were transferred to up of a company in 2013 and said company
respondent group’s own company without any did not make any attempt to settle its dues
Board Resolution passed by either company, till Government introduced rehabilitation
impugned shares were to be transferred back scheme in 2016 for extending relief to sick
to petitioner as such transaction amounted industries, simply because said company had
to oppression and mismanagement. made an application under such rehabilitation
scheme, it would not be a ground to defer
Company Court has no power to winding up of company.
induct proceedings before NCLT in
pending winding up petitions NCLT orders restoration of Co’s name
as it was running successful busi-
Jotun India (P.) Ltd. v. PSL Ltd. [2018] 89 ness and had agreed to file pending
taxmann.com 58 (Bom.) returns
Admission of winding up petition by jurisdictional
High Court would not mean that NCLT Sree Gayathri Leisure India (P.) Ltd. v.
either loses jurisdiction or cannot exercise Registrar of Companies Andhra Pradesh &
jurisdiction in case of a petition which is filed Telangana [2018] 89 taxmann.com 34 (NCLT
by another creditor (financial, operational or - Hyd.)
company itself under section 10 of the IBC). Where Company was rendering uninterrupted
services as commission agent for referring and
Penalty imposed to be set aside as enrolling members into resorts, clubs, hotels,
there was nothing on record that family parks and related activities, etc, merely
debtor had suppressed any fact because there was delay in non-filing statutory
returns, reason of which was explained and
Unigreen Global (P.) Ltd. v. Punjab National company had expressed its willingness to file
Bank, New Delhi [2018] 89 taxmann.com 17 all returns along with payment of prescribed
(NCL-AT) fee to which ROC had no objection, name
of company was to be restored along with
Where there was nothing on record to original status of Company subject to payment
suggest that corporate applicant had filed of cost for revival.
application under section 10 ‘fraudulently’
or with a ‘malicious intent’, impugned order
170 January 20 To January 26, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 64
