9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016, making it returnable on 16.02.2016. This Court permitted direct service in addition to the normal mode of service; therefore, it is clear that two modes of service were permitted by the Court. The first was the normal mode of service through the Bailiff and the second was direct service through the petitioner of that petition, the respondent herein - It is further stated that the notice of the Court has been pasted on the door of the premises in the presence of Gopalbhai Chimanbhai Solanki, the watchman. There is another report dated 11.05.2016 of the Bailiff stating that notice has been pasted on the wall of the premises of the Company in the presence of Gopalbhai Chimanbhai Solanki, the watchman. From both these reports made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court, both these grounds cannot be taken at this stage as they could have been pressed into service at the time when the Court was hearing the petition for admission, the notice of which was duly served upon the applicants. Considering the matter from all angles, this Court is of the view that no legitimate grounds have been made out for the recall of the order dated 07.04.2016 - Application rejected. - Honourable Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari For the Applicant No. 1 4 : Mr. Indravadan Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Viral K Shah, Advocate. ORAL ORDER 1. This application has been preferred by the applicants (original respondents in Company Petition No. 10/2016), inte ralia, praying for the recall of the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the date of the order of the admission of the windingup petition, that is, 07.04.2017, the applicants (original respondents) were not served and a misleading statement has been made in the affidavit of direct service, therefore, the order of admission may be recalled on this ground. 6. Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that notice was served by direct service on 18.02.2016 to applicants Nos. 2 to 4 and on 28.01.2016 to applicant No. 1, as is evident from the notice itself. 7. This Court has scrutinized the record and found that this fact is borne out from the record. 8. This Court has considered the above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and has perused the original record of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned, the record reveals that the said notice was served to applicants Nos. 2 to 4 on 18.02.2016 at 3.30 p.m. and to the applicant No. 1 on 28.01.2016. This has been written on the back side of the notice which was to be taken from this Court by the petitioner in order to effect direct service. The seal of the Company, Samshi Pipe Industries Limited along with its address, is appended on this page. The notices appear to have been accepted by Gopalbhai Solanki, the watchman. Learned counsel for the respective parties have scrutinized this record which is available in the file of the Court. 10. The record, therefore, reveals that though notice by the normal mode of service may not have been served before the order of admission dated 07.04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
