2017 (6) TMI 1405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n under Section 439 read with Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, preferred by the respondent herein (original petitioner) has been admitted. 2. Heard Mr. Indravadan Parmar, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent and perused the averments made in the application. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the order dated 07.04.2016 may be recalled on the following grounds : (i) There is a misleading presentation of facts with regard to the service of notice of the winding up proceedings. (ii) The legitimacy of the claim of winding up is doubtful. (iii) The petition has not been preferred through a person who is competent or authorized to do so. 4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... missions. Notice was issued in the windingup petition by an order dated 19.01.2016, making it returnable on 16.02.2016. This Court permitted direct service in addition to the normal mode of service; therefore, it is clear that two modes of service were permitted by the Court. The first was the normal mode of service through the Bailiff and the second was direct service through the petitioner of that petition, the respondent herein. There are two reports of the Bailiff dated 09.05.2016 and 11.05.2016. It is stated in the Bailiff's report dated 09.05.2016 that the Company, namely, applicant No. 1 herein is closed since the last one year and there is no certainty about when the Directors would visit the premises of the Company. It is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e on 18.02.2016 to applicants Nos. 2 to 4 and on 28.01.2016 on applicant No. 1. This means that all the applicants were served by direct service before the passing of the order dated 07.04.2016. The ground for recall of the said order on the basis of the alleged misleading presentation of facts with regard to the service of notice of the windingup petition, therefore, cannot stand in the face of the record. 11. A clarification is required to be made insofar as the order dated 02.03.2016 is concerned. In the said order, it is stated that service has been effected on 28.02.2016. The date mentioned, namely, 28.02.2016 appears to be a result of a typographical error, as the date on which service of notice was effected by direct servi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X