9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to winding up order under Companies Act, 1956 Analysis: The appellant challenged a winding up order under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent, the original petitioning company, informed the court that the dues had been paid. The Official Liquidator mentioned that possession of the company had not been taken due to a court order staying the winding up. Several aspects were uncontested, including the company being an ongoing concern with workers, assets, debts, and no creditor coming forward after public advertisement. The court considered Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which mandates that a winding up petition cannot be withdrawn without court permission. Rule 100 specifies the procedure for applying to withdraw a petition, emphasizing that leave of the court is required. The court noted that a winding up petition is representative and cannot be withdrawn without court permission, especially when there has been a settlement between parties. The court exercised discretion considering the interests of the parties and public good. It referenced Order 23 Rule 1, allowing abandonment of a suit with court permission. Although not directly applicable, the underlying purpose was considered. The court found it appropriate to grant leave to withdraw the winding up petition due to the ongoing nature of the company, its workers, assets, and inventory report. The court granted leave to withdraw the winding up petition with certain safeguards, including public advertisement about the settlement, reporting to the Registrar of Companies, and filing an affidavit of compliance. Failure to comply would lead to further orders. The appeal and main petition were disposed of with no costs awarded.
|
