Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


In The Matter Of M/S Hazi Manzoor Alam Industries Limited - COMPANY PETITION No. 9 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 14010 (22 August 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 9.

Company Petition No.  9 of  1999.

In the matter of

M/S. Haji Manzoor alam Industries Ltd.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

The creditors winding up petition was filed on 18.1.1999 claiming non payment of Rs.64,297.20  inspite of statutory notice dated 22.10.1998 sent by the registered post to the respondent company on 24.10.1998.

The petition was directed to be advertised.  It was initially dismissed but later, the order was recalled on 16.2.1999.  Since no one appeared even after publication of citation the company was wound up by order dated 9.2.2000.  On a recall application filed by the respondent company on 18.7.2000, this Court directed the respondent company to pay Rs. 50,000/- which was paid on 26.7.2006 to the petitioner  on which the order of winding up was kept in abeyance.

On 18.1.2006, the recall application was dismissed on the ground that no one has appeared for the respondent company on  the last three dates, and it appears to the Court that the company was not carrying on any business for the last five years.

When the staff of the Official Liquidator went to take possession after notice to the company, they were informed that the company is carrying on tannery business with about 800 workers in the factory and was willing to pay the balance amount to the creditor.  The following order was passed on  14.7.2006:

"The company was wound up on 9.2.2000.  The Official Liquidator filed an application on 9.5.2006 bringing on record the fact that the Ex Directors have refused to hand over the possession of the unit to the representatives of the Official Liquidator, who had gone


to Kanpur to take possession on 23.12.2005.

The order dated 18.1.2006 shows that the respondent company was wound up as it had fail to pay the admitted liability.  Since no one was appearing on behalf of the respondent company, the Court was constrained to conclude that the Ex-Directors are not interested in running the business and were not carrying out business for last five years.  The application to recall the winding up order was rejected.  The respondent company was not pursuing the matter at all.  It has not filed statement of affairs nor handed over the assets of the company.

It is now reported that he company is carrying out tannary business and that there are about 800 workers in the factory.  On 23.12.2005 Shri Mansoor Alam, one of the Ex Directors informed the representative of the Official Liquidator and gave a letter that the company is willing to settle the dues of the creditors.

In case the company is carrying out its business activities and the factory is running with about 800 workers, the Court will be most reluctant to proceed further with the winding up order.  However, the Ex Directors must cooperate with the Official Liquidator and make an application for recalling the winding up along with balance sheets of the last financial year.

Let the Official Liquidator issue notice to the Directors along with copy of the order calling them to appear before him and report to the Court.

List on 22.8.2006."

Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri Kushal Kant appeared on behalf of the company and has tendered a  demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of M/S. Super-house Leathers Ltd to the Official Liquidator.

According to Sri Kushal Kant, Rs. 50,000/- was paid in the year 2001 and that the amount paid today, will cover the entire interest and the expenses.

No one appeared for petitioner.  The Official Liquidator informs the court that on the  winding up order passed on the


default of the respondent company his office has incurred certain expenses on the staff and travelling expenses for  taking possession, for which the amount has been defrayed from the Companies Liquidation Fund.

Now since the entire amount along with the interest has been paid to the credit of the petitioner company, and that it is reported that about 800 workers are working in the tannery and  no one has filed application or objection to the winding up nor any further material has been produced to either support or object the winding up even after publication of notification under Rule  24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, there is no justification to continue the winding up order.  

The winding up order dated 9.2.2000 is consequently recalled. The Official Liquidator will hand over the Demand Draft of Rs. 50,000/- tendered to him today to the petitioner- company or its counsel after giving due notice,  and obtaianing receipt.  Sri Kushal Kant undertakes to pay the actual expenses incurred by the Official Liquidator in the matter which the Official Liquidator will communicate to him within a week.  The amount shall be paid within next fifteen days.

The company petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt. 22.8.2006.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.