9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Harikrishna S. Holla, Advocate For the Respondent : Vinay Paul T.K. ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent No.1 who has been served, remains unrepresented. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the first respondent-company was incorporated in the year 1995 under the name and style of Mars Print Pack Pvt. Ltd., with an authorized share capital of Rs. 50,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the petitioners that tin account of mismanagement, the first respondent-company had incurred huge losses and was not able to repay the loans which had been borrowed from the respondent No.4. Consequently there was default and recovery proceedings was initiated by respondent No.4 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, resulting in a recovery certificate being granted in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led, in terms of application in C.A.208/12 under Section 439(8) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 97 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The said application having been allowed and notice having been ordered on the petition, though the respondents having been served, except the respondent No.4, there is no representation on behalf of the other respondents. 4. It is evident from the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
