9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applications filed by the applicant for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. 2. The above mentioned four petitions were filed to seek winding up of the respondent-company on account of its inability to pay the admitted liabilities. Since none has put in appearance on behalf of the company after its service, the petition was ordered to be admitted on 2-7-2009. The factum of admission of notice was ordered to be published in 'Dainik Bhaskar', 'Indian Express' (English Edition) and the Official Gazette of the State Government, U.T., Chandigarh. Subsequently, an application was filed for recall of the aforesaid order. But none appeared on behalf of the respondent-company to support the aforesaid application, which led to the passing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions envisaged in section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 are fulfilled. Ms. Sharma has relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Official Liquidator of Mardia Steel Ltd. v. Rajeev S. Mardia [Civil Appeal Nos. 8149-8150 of 2009, dated 7-12-2009], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts have to be circumspect while considering the revival scheme as many promoters under the revival scheme may seek possession of the assets of the Company. 6. On the other hand, Shri Alok Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, admits that the claim of above mentioned petitioners stands settled, but it is asserted that CP No. 73 of 2007 has been dismissed in view of the order of winding up passed by this Court, wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering any revival scheme. The application is for recall of the order of winding up in view of the failure of the counsel of the company to appear before this Court. Therefore, I find that there exist sufficient circumstances for recall of the order of winding up dated 12-8-2010 passed in CP No. 56 of 2008 and recall of the order dated 12-8-2010 passed in CP Nos. 57, 59 and 60 of 2008 dismissing in default the application seeking setting aside of ex parte admission order. Since the claim of all the creditors stand settled, the petitions seeking winding up of the respondent-company are also dismissed as no cause of action survives in the petitions. 9. The argument of Shri Alok Jain that creditor in CP No. 73 of 2007 is entitled to be tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
