Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
Donghee Vision Industrial Company Ltd. vs Tube Investments Of India Ltd. And Anr. on 8 December, 2000 cites

Devendra Kumar Jain vs Polar Forgings & Tools Ltd. on 3 November, 1992

Learned senior counsel also referred to the statutory notice sent on December 20, 1999. Learned senior counsel therefore submitted that even assuming that the provisions of Section 434(1)(a) were not complied with, the provisions of Section 433(e) would apply and hence, the order of winding up need not be set aside. Learned senior counsel submitted that the advertisement regarding the applicant-company was given in the newspapers and in spite of the efforts taken to serve at the registered office or the corporate, office of the applicant-company, the applicant has not responded and hence, this court has rightly held that the applicant has not come forward to oppose the winding up and the applicant has not made out any case to set aside the winding up order. Learned senior counsel also referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Devendra Kumar Jam v. Polar Forgings and Tools Ltd, [1995] 84 Comp Cas 766 and submitted that Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act does not require the creditor to state in the notice as to what would be the consequences if the sum due is not paid by the company to the creditor and the law does not require that the demand under Section 434(1)(a) must recite a threat of proceedings for winding up in the case of failure by the company to pay.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 21 - Y K Sabharwal - Full Document
1