SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Del) 907

VIKRAMAJIT SEN
DEVINDER KUMAR BAJAJ – Appellant
Versus
PURE DRINKS (NEW DELHI) LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.S.CHANDHIOK, D.S.Narula, Vijay Kishan, VIKRAM JAITLEY

Vikramajit Sen

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the Defendant under Section 442 of the Companies Act for the stay of proceedings. It is predicated on the fact that a winding up petition had been admitted and citation has also been issued. The winding up petition, however, was filed on 30/01/1997. Even if this contention of the Defendant was otherwise well-founded it ought to have approached the Court with expedition, and certainly within a period of three years of the relevant event. This has not been done and accordingly the application can be dismissed on this short point. However, my attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in The Official Liquidator v. Dharti Dhan (P) Ltd. , AIR 1977 SC 740, in which it has beenobserved that the passing of orders staying proceedings should not be carried out in a mechanical manner. The Apex Court specifically enjoined that if it appears to the Court that the application had been filed with the intention of the delaying the proceedings, it should not be permitted. Learned counsel has also relied on Basumati Mahajan v. Foremost Industries India Ltd. , 1995 (34) DRJ 732 where, following the previous decision inc



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top