Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2007 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (9) TMI 404 - HC - Companies LawWinding up - whether advertisement in question was not covered by rule 96? - Power of Tribunal/CLB on hearing petition - Held that:- In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said on the basis of the material of the company petition that the appellants-petitioning creditors had any groundless or baseless claim or that the winding up petition was filed to coerce the company into admitting the groundless claim. In fact, the respondent-company had already admitted the claim of the appellant-petitioning creditors to the tune of ₹ 19.87 crores in their correspondence prior to the statutory notice.In view of the above findings, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the first contention of the appellant that the advertisement in question was not covered by rule 96. We have proceeded on the demur that it was. We are not inclined to accede to the request that this court may remand the matter to the learned company judge for deciding the question of abuse of the process of the court after the respondent-company files a reply before the learned company judge on merits, because the company petition was filed in the year 2002 and the present OJ Appeal was filed in the year 2003; the dues are in respect of commercial advertisements which were telecast at the request of and for the benefit of, the respondent-company, between November 2001 and June 2002 and the respondent-company did not avail of the opportunity given by this court during pendency of this appeal to file its counter-affidavit on merits. It is, therefore, high time that the Company Petition No. 201 of 2002 is heard on merits at the admission stage at the earliest. The four years that the respondent-company has earned in this manner is also sufficient not to pass any further order of costs in their favour. Allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated April 25, 20031, of the learned company judge dismissing Company Petition No. 210 of 2002. The company petition shall accordingly stand restored to the file of the learned company judge taking up company petitions as per the present roster.
|