9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained closed for over two years and that the machinery stand relocated and that the respondents have offered to hand over the company along with the machinery to the petitioners without any consideration, the petitioner may choose the option of either taking the ownership/control of the company or file a petition for winding up of the company. No other relief can be granted in the facts of the case like asking the 2nd respondent to pay back the investments made by the petitioner as in a business venture, one has to take a risk and in the present case, both the sides appear to have lost their investment." 3. The petitioner/applicant filed CA 256/2007 on 1.3.2007 and mentioned it on 3.5.2007 stating that in terms of the order dated 21.12.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the application and they may seek for winding up of the company. The application is disposed of in the above terms," 4. Admittedly, the petitioners did not exercise the option within 15 days and also did not prefer any appeal against the said order dated 28.8.2007 within such period. Instead, they filed an appeal before the Hon'bie High Court of Delhi (CO.A(SB)-43/2007) on 16.11.2007. In his affidavit, Dr. Raj Kachroo, the petitioner, has stated that certified copy of the order dated 3.9.2007 was received by him from the Company Law Board on 26.10-2007. Thus, the appeal was within the period of limitation. On 20.11.2007, the High Court was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 3.9.2007 but dismissed the appeal on 26.7.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner, who has all along been representing the petitioner, was present before the Hon'bie High Court of Delhi on 26,7.2012, the petitioner, even in the worst case scenario, ought to have exercised the option within 15 days from the date of the said order. 6. After hearing the ld Counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the Respondents. In view of the fact that Shri Rohan Thawani, ld. Counsel of the petitioner was present before the Company Law board on the date of the order dated 3.9.2007 passed in CA 152/2007, and before the High Court of Delhi on 26.7.2012 i.e. the date of the order dismissing the appeal, the knowledge thereof on such dates to the petitioner can safely be attributed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
