9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 83; and ( c )to revoke the order of admission of Company Petition No. 1 of 1983 as not maintainable in law. The application is supported by an affidavit dated February 28, 1983. This is opposed by the petitioner in the company petition. Company Petition No. 1 of 1983 was filed by the respondent in this application. The respondent was an employee of the company. Alleging that the company neglected and refused to pay a sum of Rs. 6,109.50 as salary and other dues in spite of repeated demands and that the applicant company is commercially insolvent, Company Petition No. 1 of 1983 was filed praying that the company be wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act. This petition was filed on December 21, 1982. Notice was ordered to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecifically for settlement. Even thereafter from March 18, 1983, up to March 13, 1984, the above application (No. 85 of 1983) was not pressed, but the proceedings were adjourned for evidence and for production of documents. Counsel for the applicant company, Mr. M. M. Thomas, argued that this court has jurisdiction to revoke the order of admission of Company Petition No. 1 of 1983 as not maintainable. It is argued that the amount claimed by the petitioner in the company petition is disputed; that the petitioner should establish her claim in court and the petition filed under section 439 of the Companies Act is intended to exert pressure on the company by a creditor to realise a debt without recourse to a civil court, and is an abuse of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given to the company is not for the purpose of deciding the manner of the advertisement, bat for deciding whether the advertisement should be made at all and the petition proceeded with". The above decision was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in a very recent decision, Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. United Industrial Bank Ltd. [1983] 4 SCC 625, 644; [1984] 55 Comp. Cas. 423 . In view of the above, the objections raised by the respondent in the application that the petition is not maintainable is devoid of force. I hold that the petition filed to revoke the order of admission of the company petition is maintainable. Even so, the further question is, whether, on the facts of this case, the applicant company is entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the petition". The question as to whether the "admission", once made, should be revoked is a matter of "discretion" vested in the court. When the petition was admitted and notice was given to the applicant company, the applicant company did file an affidavit-in-opposition. It opposed the company petition. Application No. 85 of 1983 was filed to revoke the admission of the petition. It was entitled to do so. It invoked the jurisdiction of this court in the matter. But the company did not pursue the matter. On the other hand, the company represented to this court on more than one occasion that it wanted to settle the matter and prayed for grant of time on that basis. Time was granted by this court for the purpose of settling the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
