9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent-company. 2. The brief facts are that the present petition for winding up of respondent No. 1 company has been filed on 5-4-2006. On 27-4-2006, the notice of the petition was ordered to be issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. The alienation of the assets of the respondent-company, except in due course of the business of the company, during the pendency of the winding up petition, was ordered to be subject to the final order passed by this Court. 3. It may be noticed that earlier the petitioner has filed a civil suit (copy annexure P17), inter alia, claiming that the company as a legal entity is non est in the eyes of law. On 27-4-2006, learned counsel for the petitioner made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by this Court . Any person disregarding this notice shall do so at his own risk and responsibility. Dated : May 31, 2006 Vinod Krishan Khanna 121, Race Course Road, Vimal Krishan Khanna Amritsar." 5. It is the case of the applicants in the aforesaid application that the said advertisement is without any direction of this Court required under rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and that the conduct of the petitioners by advertising the winding up proceedings is abuse of process of the Court and that this Court should take every effort to discourage such flagrant and serious breach. It is also pointed out that the company is a premier organizati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the general public. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently argued that the notice published cannot be said to be a simpliciter notice for information or knowledge to the general public as the petitioners have not published the complete order of the court but only gave truncated version of the same and also have added few words as well. The said notice was misleading as the words not used in the order, have been made part of the notice and that on account of such advertisement, the applicants have suffered huge losses as many orders have been cancelled. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd. v. Kunvar Ajay Designer Saree (P.) Ltd. [2004] 118 Comp. Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted, the company may show or contend that the filing of the petition amounts to an abuse of process of the Court. If the petition is admitted, the company may move the Court with a prayer that the petition be not advertised. It was further held that if the petition is not presented in good faith and for legitimate purpose of obtaining winding up order but for other purposes, then the Court may restrain the advertisement of petition and stay further proceedings upon it. The question whether the public notice issued to bring the factum of ad interim injunction order passed by this Court to the information of the general public was not the issue raised or decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 10. In Satellite Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
