9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an ex parte order and the petition was ordered to be advertised in accordance with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The appellant respondent-company before the learned single judge which was sought to be wound up has preferred this appeal inter alia , on the ground that the learned single judge has committed a grave error in admitting the company petition straightway without a pre-admission notice to the company and directing the advertisement of the same in newspapers and this has caused serious prejudice to the respondent-company. Shri Paras Kuhad, learned counsel for the company has urged before us that the impugned ex parte order of admission and advertisement of the winding up of the company deserves to be set aside and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der that it thinks fit: Provided that the Tribunal shall not refuse to make a winding up order on the ground only that the assets of the company have been mortgaged to an amount equal to or in excess of those assets, or that the company has no assets. (2)Where the petition is presented on the ground that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up, the Tribunal may refuse to make an order of winding up, if it is of the opinion that some other remedy is available to the petitioners and that they are acting unreasonably in seeking to have the company wound up instead of pursuing that other remedy. (3)Where the petition is presented on the ground of default in delivering the statutory report to the Registrar, or in holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank Ltd. AIR 1983 SC 1272; [1984] 55 Comp. Cas. 423 , ( iii ) NEPC Agro Foods v. Hindustan Thompson Associates Ltd. [1999] 95 Comp. Cas. 532 (Mad.), ( iv ) Soujanya Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. Nalla Satyanarayana Murthy [1995] 1 Comp. LJ 172 (AP) ; [2001] 103 Comp. Cas. 1082 , ( v ) Bipla Chemical Industries v. Shree Keshariya Investment Ltd. [1977] 47 Comp. Cas. 211 (Delhi), ( vi ) Gol-cha Investment P. Ltd. v. Shanti Chandra Bafna [1970] 40 Comp. Cas. 1128 ; AIR 1970 SC 1350 and ( vii ) Pioneer Consolidated Co. of India Ltd. v. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. [1984] 55 Comp. Cas. 509 (Delhi). We are of the view that though there are no fetters or restrictions on the powers of the company judge to pass appropriate orders a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
