9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apur West, Dimapur, under sub-section (1)( b ) of section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( the Act ) for the alleged negligence to pay Rs. 3,46,368 towards indebtedness. This company petition was registered as Company Petition No. 2 of 1995. The managing director of Nasha Toys (P.) Ltd., ( the appellant-company ) did put in his appearance before the company judge. However, he did not file any reply to the company petition. The company judge issued notice to show-cause as to why the advertisement for winding up the appellant-company under section 433 read with section 438 of the Act should not be published. In spite of that notice having been published, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-company to show cause as to why the advertisemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under : "I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents produced by the petitioner-company. As no counter affidavit has been filed it is not known what is the exact case of the respondent. Statutory notice was also served on the respondent and thereafter notice was also published in the newspapers. In spite of that no step was taken by the respondent to defend their case. In view of the above, I find that the respondent-company has failed or neglected to pay the debt. Accordingly, I order for winding up of the respondent-company. Send intimation to the Registrar of Companies and the official liquidator according to law. The case is disposed of." 2. The present appeal has been filed by Nasha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him and even no reply has been given to the letters addressed by him. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the company itself, i.e., Nasha Toys (P.) Ltd., was not made respondent before the company judge in Company Petition No. 2 of 1995 and it was only the managing director of the respondent-company who was arrayed as the respondent. It was further argued that no notice as required under section 434(1) of the Act was served on the respondent-company before filing the company petition. He submitted that in the company petition itself it has been mentioned by the petitioner that the statutory notice, which was sent by registered post acknowledgement due under section 434(1)( a ) prior to the filing of the company petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heading in respect of which winding up is sought. From a perusal of the Company Petition No. 2 of 1995, we find that it is mentioned, In the matter of Nasha Toys (P.) Ltd. In Form No. 46, there is no indication that any other person is to be made respondent as such. It is sufficient to mention that the petition relates to a particular company of which the winding up is sought for. Otherwise also we find that the notice which was published in the newspapers was for winding up of Nasha Toys (P.) Ltd. In the company petition, the managing director of the company has also been arrayed as the respondent. The contents of the petition relate to the affairs of the company and nothing personal against the managing director as such. After all, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
