High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
In The Matter Of Taxmann Publication (P) Ltd. - COMPANY PETITION No. 76 of 1999  RD-AH 13308 (10 August 2006)
Court No. 9.
Company Application No. 144725 of 2006
Bhargava Law House (P) Ltd. ... Applicant-Respondent
Company Petition No. 76 of 1999
In the matter of
Taxmann Publication (P) Ltd.
Bhargava LawHouse (P) Ltd.
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Order on recall application dated 24.7.2006.
Heard Sri D.V. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Comp;any in support of the application dated 24.7.2006 along with affidavit of Sri Shyamji Bhargava, the Director of the Respondent-Company for recalling the order dated 7.4.2006, by which the respondent company was directed to be wound up.
It is stated that Sri D.V. Jaiswal could not appear on the date fixed in the matter, as his clerk did not mark it in the list, and that inspite of listing of the case, he could not appear in the Court. He is claiming, date of knowledge from the letter of the Official Liquidator communicating the winding up order with the directions to hand over the assets, and to file statement of affairs.
The grounds for recalling the winding up order are bonafide. The applicant has not explained as to why the respondent-company failed to deposit Rs. 5 lacs in pursuance of the detailed order of this court dated 30.4.2004. The order
was confirmed in Special Appeal. Sri D.V. Jaiswal could not give any reason for not depositing the amount. The company did not file any objection to the publication of citation under Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. Further Sri D.V. Jaiswal did not dispute the financial position of the company reflected in the last balance sheet dated 5.7.1999 in which the respondent company is shown to be highly indebted, and had lost its substratum in 1999 itself. As against the issued subscribed and paid up capital of Rs. 35,200/- out of authorised capital of Rs. 5 lacs, and share application money of Rs. 12,000/-, the company has secured loan of Rs. 92,490/- and sundry creditors of Rs. 16,12,681/-, and other liabilities of Rs. 45,542/-. The written down value of the fixed assets in Schedule A are shown to be only 3,07,906/-. It appears that the respondent-company allowed the mater to be decided exparte just to delay the proceedings.
I do not find any good ground to recall the order even on merits. The recall application is , as such, rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.