9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AY RASTOGI, J. Sunil Nath and Parikshit Singh for the Petitioner. BK Sharma for the Official Liquidator. ORDER 1. Instant company petition has been filed U/Ss 433, 434 439, of Companies Act, 1956 ("Co. Act") seeking winding up of M/s Hanuman Das Sons (P) Ltd ("respondent-Co.") duly incorporated on 06/12/1948 having registered office at C-29, Bhagwan Das Marg, Jaipur. 2. Petitioner-1 (Rahmat Khan) claims himself to be creditor as well as contributory/ share holder while petitioners-2 to 4 (Ibrahim Ali, Smt. Choti Yaqub Ali, claim themselves as contributories of respondent-Co. Petitioners are holding respectively 150, 200, 200 50 shares of respondent-Co. And out of total 2000 shares, they hold 600 shares o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has further been averred that due to complete deadlock in respondent-Co., and the fact that respondent-Co. Was not transacting any business, on 16/07/1992, an Extra ordinary General Meeting was called held at its registered office and a Special resolution was passed for winding up of respondent-Company U/s 433 of Co. Act; and it was further resolved by the Board of Directors to take necessary steps moving application for the purpose, as is evident from minutes (Ann.4), which was also submitted before the Registrar of Companies vide document (Ann.5). 6. It has been averred that after the year 1992, all the Directors dissociated each other with the affairs of respondent-Co., no steps were taken by any of Directors for winding up of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence whereof cannot be ascertained though copy of profit loss account for the year ending on 31/03/1991 has been enclosed and its authentic document for ascertaining the net worth of the Company with reference to a particular point of time could not be made available and it was prayed that before any further action being taken, the petitioners may be asked to submit statement of affairs. 10. However, it appears that later on, objectors did not turn up and after taking note of submissions made, at one stage, this Court vide order dt.10/02/2011 directed petitioners to submit statement of affairs of the Company, which as informed, has been submitted by petitioners on 04/07/2011, which has not been controverted by Counsel for OL. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
