9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein above inasmuch as liberty granted by Division Bench would not even remotely suggest that applicant would be entitled to reagitate the claim for being impleaded in the present proceedings. The present application deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. - C.A. No. 1069/2013 in Co. P. No. 56/2008 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2015 - MR ARAVIND KUMAR, J. For The Appellant : Mr Ajesh Kumar S., Advocate for DSK Legal ORDER Aravind Kumar, J. 1. This is an application filed by one Dr. Kirtivan D. Kotian seeking for being impleaded in Co. P. 56/2008 contending inter alia that he along with his brother and father owned not less than 95% of shares in the company(i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble terms that he is not a shareholder of company (in liquidation) he would not be a necessary party and accordingly application came to be dismissed on 25.04.2013. It also requires to be noticed by this court that said application has been dismissed along with two other applications filed by very same applicant which was for recalling the order dated 18.12.2008 passed in Co. P. 56/2008 directing winding up of the company (in liquidation) and to condone the delay in filing said application. Those two applications undisputedly came to be dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this court on 25.04.2013. These orders were carried in appeal by applicants in O.S.A. 33/2013 and O.S.A. 44/2013. Division Bench of this court, after considering rival conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 25.02.2015. His submission is placed on record. 4. Present application has been filed by the very same applicant contending inter alia that liberty was given by the Division Bench and as such he has approached this court by filing present application. In that view of the matter it would be necessary to examine as to whether such liberty had been granted to appellant therein i.e., applicant herein to file similar application yet again. Liberty which applicant claims to have been granted by Division Bench reads as under: 15. However, it may be clarified that dismissal of these appeals will not come in the way of the appellant in filing suitable application in the Company proceedings pending before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learing dues of the bank and thereafter permitted to take over security offered to bank for appellant to revive the company. It has been held by the Division Bench that such prayer is not worthy of acceptance since company under liquidation cannot claim right over properties of such company since such right would not be of any one particular party or creditor. It came to be held that assets of the company will have to be distributed as per terms of the Companies Act. As such it came to be held by Division Bench that even though guarantor was initially promoter of company he cannot be said to be a party interested in the revival of the company as none of the provisions give any right to such a person to revive a company and that too a person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
