Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (11) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lication under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 is recalling winding up order dated 10th February, 1999 passed by this Court and also prays for dismissal of the Company Petition. 2 The Applicant is the shareholders contributories and members of a public limited company viz. Surlux diagnostic Limited in liquidation. The Respondent is the official liquidator, High Court, Bombay. The company in liquidation was incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 and its shares were listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. 3 On 10th February, 1999, one Mr. Omprakash Mehra proprietor of M/s. Omprakash Durgadas having his office at 40, Bharat Bhavan Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002 had filed the company winding up petition. The debt was of Rs.15 lakhs. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence of the Official Liquidator's representative and the Petitioner. By order dated 16th March, 2000, the Court has further directed the Official Liquidator to prepare an inventory of all the equipments/instrument and machinery situated in the premises. The inventory was accordingly prepared of all the assets lying in the said premises. The report was accordingly filed on 16th June, 2000. As the property could not sold, another report was filed on 24th January, 2003. By order dated 6th February, 2003, it was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 7 Thereafter, another report filed by the Official Liquidator for early disposal of the Company Application No.498 of 1999. On 11th January, 2008. The said application was dismissed. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the Company Petition be disposed off. 9 The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant has relied upon Sudarsan Chits (I) Ltd., v/s. O. Sukumaran Pillai and Others (1984) 4 SCC 657 in which the Apex Court has considered the scope and purpose of Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 in the following terms:"....... It is now wellsettled that a windingup order once made can be revoked or recalled but till it is revoked or recalled it continues to subsist." 10 Rule 224 of the Companies Act, 1956 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apart from Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, provided provisions of recalling the said winding up order. There is no time bar. The winding up order definitely affects the running busines .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is settled. 13 So far claim of Security Guard is concerned, as raised by the Official Liquidator, pursuance to the demand made by the concerned Agency at the relevant time, has been settled out of the Court. An Affidavit is filed accordingly. The Official Liquidator in view of the settlement has no objections to grant the prayers. Therefore, a case is made out to recall the order of winding up as passed in the year 1999. The order is passed accordingly. 15 As there is no winding up order, the Official Liquidator stands discharged. The steps and/or action so taken as referred above by the Official Liquidator including taking possession of the premises which is still with the Official Liquidator should also go. In the result, the Official .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reliance is placed accordingly in the matter of Shreeji Concast Limited v/s. Shreeji Oxygen Private Limited and Another in 2007 (138) Company Cases 717. Paragraph 23 of the judgment reads as under:" 23:On its restoration, Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the original petitioning creditor submits that in view of the consent terms, the original petitioning creditor seeks permission to withdraw Company Petition No.66 of 2002. Since no other winding up petition is pending against the company and no one enters in the shoe of the petitioning creditor, the original petitioning creditor can be permitted to withdraw Company Petition No.66 of 2002. However, as per the present roster, this court cannot hear the said petition and henc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates