((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.911 OF 2007 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.391 OF 2005 M/s.Indokem Limited Petitioner and M/s.Beechins Creation (P) Ltd. Applicant versus The Official Liquidator Respondent S.G.Gokhale for petitioner. Jyoti Singh a/w Avinash Singh Gautame i/by Dhir & Dhir Associates for applicant/respondent. S.Ramakantha, Depyty Official Liquidator. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 21st January 2008 PC : 1. By this application, the applicant company prays for setting aside of an order dated 27th September 2006 whereby the company was ordered to be wound up. The principal ground on which this relief is claimed, is that, on the date when the said order came to be passed, the BIFR proceedings in relation to the respondent company was pending. That fact is not in dispute at all. If it is so, this Court would have had no ((-2-)) MST jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, muchless to pass an order of winding up in respect of such company-which is the settled position in law. On this finding, the application deserves to be allowed to the extent of setting aside the order dated 21st September 2006 ordering winding up of the respondent company. Although the applicant has sought wider relief of dismissing the company petition, the counsel for the applicant fairly submits that the said relief need not be granted and for the time being only the order dated 21st September 2006 be set aside. In the circumstances, the order dated 21st September 2006 is set aside in terms of this order. 2. Counsel for the respondent-original petitioner, however, resisted the prayer for grant of relief to the applicant on the argument that the applicant has not complied with the directions contained in the order dated 13th December 2007 in its letter and spirit. Emphasis was placed on the last portion of the said order which required the applicant to disclose on affidavit as to what was the current status in respect of the scheme propounded by the applicant and the time period that may be required by the applicant to comply with the directions of BIFR.. ((-3-)) MST The applicant has filed an affidavit which does indicate that the BIFR scheme has already been filed. The fact that some queries have been raised and the applicant has not complied with the information requisitioned by the concerned authority, does not mean that no scheme is filed in respect of the respondent company before the BIFR.. The respondent-original petitioner may be free to appear before the BIFR and request the said authority to compel the applicant company to comply with the queries/information sought by the concerned authority within specified time. That issue can be conveniently addressed by the BIFR and appropriate orders and directions passed against the applicant company. The fact that the applicant company is delaying the BIFR proceeding, is a matter which will have to be addressed before the BIFR.. As aforesaid, the original petitioner will be free to appear in those proceedings and call upon the BIFR to pass appropriate directions and/or orders as may be advised. This application is disposed off on the above basis. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)