Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2024 (3) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (3) TMI 989 - HC - Companies Law


Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the winding up of a company under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 due to non-payment of outstanding dues, appointment of Official Liquidator under section 449, permission for disbursement of dividends, dissolution of the company under section 481, and weeding out of company records.

Winding Up and Appointment of Official Liquidator:
The petitioner, M/s. Dewas Techno Products Private Limited, filed a company petition seeking winding up of the respondent company, M/s. STI Phoenix Wear Private Limited, for failing to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 25,90,433/- despite demand. The Company Judge passed an order for winding up and appointed the Official Liquidator under section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Disbursement of Dividends and Dissolution:
The Official Liquidator informed the Court about the sale of company assets and sought permission to invite claims for disbursement of dividends. After distributing the dividends to unsecured creditors, the Official Liquidator requested permission for dissolution of the company under section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court granted permission for dissolution as the affairs of the company appeared to be completely wound up.

Weeding Out of Records and Final Directions:
The Official Liquidator sought permission to weed out company records after five years from the date of dissolution. The Court allowed this request and directed the Official Liquidator to forward a copy of the dissolution order to the Registrar of Companies. The competition petition was disposed of, with the petitioner bearing the cost of litigation.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the Judge in this case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates