Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)Rajearajeswari Packaging Products vs Dev Fasteners Ltd. on 29 October, 2001
16. Holding that such a stand of not sending the statutory notice to the registered office, when admittedly the company received the statutory notice, is hyper-technical, under similar circumstances, E.Padmanabhan,J. in Rajearajeswari Packaging Products v. Dev Fasteners Limited [(2002) 108 Com.Cases 715], after referring to two judgments of Bombay High Court in N.L.Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P) Ltd., vs. Pravinchandra P.Mehta [(1991) 70 Com.
Section 433 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P.) Ltd. vs Pravinchandra P. Mehta on 13 January, 1989
"In other words, it is sought to be contended that in the absence of service of notice in conformity with section 434(1)(a) by serving a notice on the registered office of the company, no application for winding up is maintainable. In this case the liability is not being denied and the receipt of notice by the respondent company at its administrative office is not disputed. But the hyper-technical objection raised is that such notice should have been served at its registered office and for want of service of notice on the registered office of the company, the company application is not maintainable, is the only and substantial contention advanced. The petitioner being a creditor is required to make a demand for payment. It is not in dispute that the statutory notice had been served on the respondent company at its administrative office, but it has not been served at its registered office. Learned counsel for the respondent company relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in N.L.Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P) Ltd., vs. Pravinchandra P.Mehta (1991) 70 Comp Cas 31 in support of its contention that the demand notice under section 434(1)(a) must be served only on the registered office of the company and that service on the administrative office is invalid.
Section 220 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
M/S Indian Oil Corporation vs M/S Nepc India Ltd., & Ors on 20 July, 2006
b) He would also submit that there are abundant records to show that the first respondent acknowledged its liabilities and there is unimpeachable evidence to show that the first respondent received various amounts. It is his submission that filing of a civil suit is not a bar for filing winding up petition by relying upon the judgment in Varinder Sahni vs. MGRM Net Ltd., [(2010) 156 Com.Cases 36] and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NEPC India Limited [(2003) 114 Com.Cases 207].
Hyderabad Abrasives & Minerals (P.) ... vs Andhra Cements Ltd. on 10 December, 2002
18. That was also followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court subsequently in Hyderabad Abrasives and Minerals (P) Ltd., and others vs, Andhra Cements Ltd., [(2003) 114 Com. Cases 250].
Varinder Sahni vs Mgrm Net Ltd. on 30 April, 2009
21. The further submission of the learned senior counsel for the first respondent that the filing of suit by the petitioner will bar the winding up proceedings under the Companies Act is unsustainable. While the civil Court is to vindicate the private rights of parties, the company petition filed for winding up is to decide about the capacity of the company to repay its debts which has got larger ramification while considering the plight of creditors and contributories of the company. Simply because the petitioner has filed a suit based on the mortgages stated to have been executed by one of the Directors of the first respondent company creating security for repayment of amount, which has been subsequently advanced by the petitioner, that cannot stand in the way of the petitioner in maintaining the company petition for winding up when the petitioner is able to establish before this Court that the first respondent company is unable to pay off its debts which is a basic requirement for winding up proceedings. That was also the view of this Court in Varinder Sahni vs. MGRM Net Ltd., [(2010) 156 Com. Cases 36].