9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore. The petitioners have prayed that the firm be wound up under the provisions of the Act, as the respondent-firm and its partners have failed to pay each of the petitioners the balance of their subscription amounting to Rs. 4,000 in each case together with bonus thereon in the sum of Rs. 341.65. Balance due to each of the petitioners is indicated as follows : Petitioner Memership No. Amount subscribed Plus Bonus Amount paid by the 1st respondt. Balance Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Petitioner No. 1 48 4,000 Plus 341.65 1,000 3,341.65 Petitioner No. 2 287 4,000 Plus 341.65 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany within the meaning of section 582 of the Act and, therefore, it is not liable to be wound up under the Act. They have further alleged that respondents Nos. 2 to 11 are not partners in the firm on October 20, 1969, or on May 2, 1979, which latter date is the date of filing of the petition. They have set out in detail that the respondent-firm was formed by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and registered under the Partnership Act on October 20, 1969, together with one Shyamalal and another Shri P.S. Radhakrishna Shetty. It is further alleged that Shyamalal died and the firm was continued with the remaining partners. Later, respondent No. 5 was inducted in the year 1975. The aforementioned Radhakrishna Shetty, it is alleged, got himself released ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry objection overruled. Apart from the other objections summarised earlier, there is no other objection offered by respondents Nos. 7, 9, 10 and 11. The other objections are technical in nature and are not borne out by the records nor substantiated as the respondents have not chosen to pursue the defence. Respondents Nos. 3 and 8 had been served and have remained unrepresented. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were also served and have remained unrepresented and the proceedings were continued placing them ex parte . This court has appointed the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator of the company on August 10, 1979, in Company Application No. 76/1979. In these circumstances, accepting the case of the petitioners, the 1st responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
