TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be paid to the concerned. The report so filed on record is in no way sufficient to deny the case of recalling the order of winding up as they are concerned with the requisite payments to be made and/or paid to cover the liability and/or due/claim as recorded in the Official Liquidator's report. The Applicants, as recorded above, are willing to fulfill the same. The learned Counsel and all the parties concerned have accepted the Cheque and/or Demand Draft and have no objection of any kind, as the matter is settled. 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. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not only a profitable company, but the same was also discharging important function of providing diagnostic services to people at large. Unfortunately, due to a temporary lean phase, the company in liquidation could not pay amount of Rs.15 lakhs with interest thereon. The company in liquidation has genuine disputes with Omprakash Mehra, now dead. Now the Applicant has come forward with necessary finance to pay all creditors and revive of the company in liquidation in the interest of the creditors and the shareholders like Applicant, but also public at large. 5 Pursuance to the winding up order, the Official Liquidator on 3rd August, 1999 took possession of the Diagnostic Centre situated at 18, 19, 20 Swastik Chamber, Chembur, Mumb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor to issue an advertisement inviting claims from the creditors / workers of the Respondent Company. The steps were taken accordingly. 8 In pursuance to the advertisement, the claim from Mr. Vinesh D. Sathe and Mr. Digambar Sathe (share holders) for Rs.3,000/received. The Official Liquidator, therefore, submitted the report on 29th August, 2012 and pointed out the claims. The matter was listed again on 25th September, 2012. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant on instructions sought further time to settle the matter by making requisite payment as per the Official Liquidator's report. By a further report dated 25th September, 2012, the Official Liquidator in paragraph 2 gave details of all the claims. The reference was also m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned persons if unable to make payment and/or settle the matter and/or amount remained unpaid, bound to face the effect of the winding up of the Company. Therefore, the concerned person or the Company if able to make the payment and/or satisfied the claims of the Creditors and/or the workers, I see there is no reason that the Court should not recall the winding up order and/or proceedings arising out of such petition. 11 In the present case, as recorded above, the Applicant is willing to settle the matter claims and dues in all respects and accordingly filed an additional affidavit and also brought in the Court the requisite Demand Drafts to be paid to the concerned. The sole legal heir and representative of the original Petitioner Radhe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Court at As is where is basis . 16 Now the next question is to dispose off the Company Petition which is revived and as observed above. In the commercial matters monetary claims can be settled at any stage. The dues of the Creditors and/or Workers of the Respondent if paid and settled, there is no question to continue with the order of winding up. The Court, in such a situation, can dispose off the Petition as it is settled out of the Court. There is no bar that Court cannot permit the parties to settle the matter at any point of time. Therefore, in the presence case, as no claims survive and/or there are no dues payable to any one, including Creditor and/or Workers of the Respondent Company and as there is no claim and/or o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilarly, in the matter of Niranjan B. Shah, Ex. Managing Director of Asian Transformers v. Suresh Steel Corporation and others in Company Application No.225 of 2009 particularly in paragraph 40 observed as under: 40: The winding up order dated 22111976 passed in the Company Petition No.34 of 1976, in view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and directions, is recalled. The Company Petition is restored to file and is permitted to be withdrawn. 19 This Court also in Company Application No.1294 of 2006 in Company Petition No.642 of 1993 has recalled the order of windingup, as in that case also, the Petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the Petition. The learned Judge of this Court, therefore, permitted to dispose off the Company Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
