1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.377 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.84 OF 2001 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.378 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.591 OF 1998 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.379 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.786 OF 2005 Wanbury Ltd. .. Applicant Versus The O.L., H.C.Bombay .. Respondent Mr.F.E.D’Vetre, Senior Advocate with Vivek Menon and Ms.Bukhari i/b. D.H.Law and Associates rfor applicant Mr.Vivek Kantawala with Ms.Shaheed for petitioner CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19th June 2008 P.C. . These company applications are preferred 2 by the applicant company which was earlier known as Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. It is undisputed that this company was incorporated under the Companies Act. In the light of the fact that its registered office is situate within the jurisdiction of this Court, a winding up petition by a creditor was presented, being Company Petition No.591 of 1998. That is the subject matter of Company Application No.378 of 2008. The other two company applications are in their respective company petitions. These are company petitions registered as petitions for winding up pursuant to a report sent by B.I.F.R. recommending winding up. The company petition No.84 of 2001 is by a creditor who is represented by M/s.Arvind Rathod and Co. 2. The O.L. as well as the original petitioners have been served with the company applications. It is undisputed before me that the company petitions were placed before a 3 learned Single Judge of this Court and on 16th January 2008, the Court proceeded on the basis that the company has not shown interest in any of the petitions. There were none present on behalf of the company to inform the court with regard to any dispute much less bonafide raised to the creditors petition. Similarly, none was present to explain the position with regard to the opinion expressed by B.I.F.R. recommending its winding up. 3. It is in these circumstances that this Court proceeded to direct winding up of the company. 4. The company applications are filed to recall these orders. 5. Now it is brought to my notice that the applicant company has stepped in pursuant to a scheme which was sanctioned and approved by this 4 Court. Further it has been informed that the basis of the order passed by the Court is an opinion of B.I.F.R. dated 27th October 2004. However, that order and the opinion recommending winding up was challenged before A.A.I.F.R. Initially the A.A.I.F.R. stayed that order and subsequently set aside the same. These facts were not brought to the notice of the Court when it passed order on 16th January 2008. It is contended that in the light of the development pursuant to the orders dated 27th October 2004 of B.I.F.R., the sanction of scheme by this Court, matter being carried right upto the Apex Court and the Apex Court rendering final judgement on 16th May 2008 once again remanding the matter back to B.I.F.R. All this would show that the opinion of B.I.F.R. was no longer holding the field. Attention of the learned Single Judge was also not invited to the order dated 19th January 2007 in C.P.186 of 2005 recalling the order of admission in C.P.786 of 2005. 5 6. Copies of all these proceedings and orders therein have been placed on record. Annexures to the affidavit in support of each of these applications would suggest that the proceedings are pending before the B.I.F.R. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for original petitioner Mr.Kantawala does not dispute that once the proceedings are pending, then section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 would come into play and the court cannot proceed to pass any orders on the winding up petition No.591 of 1998 or other pending winding up petitions. 8. The other learned Counsel for their respective petitioners are duly served and were represented on the last occasion. Even, the Dy.O.L. is present. In the light of the admitted factual position and applicability of 6 section 22(1) of SICA so also the proceedings being pending before the B.I.F.R., there is no alternative but to adjourn the hearing of company petitions sine die. In such circumstances, the orders passed by this Court on 16th January 2008 have necessarily to be recalled. They could not have been passed in the light of the settled legal position. Further, they came to be passed because the factual position was not placed before this Court by the Company. The company admits its default of appearance on the relevant date and submits that in the interest of justice, an opportunity be given to the company to contest the proceedings. Considering this request, the order passed on 16th January 2008 is recalled. 9. In view of the above order all company applications are disposed of. No costs. 7 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)