Dr. M. K. Sharma, J.

( 1 ). By this order I propose to dispose of the applications filed by the respondent praying for recalling and/or review of the order dated 10. 4. 1997 and 2. 12. 1997 passed by this court in the connected Company Petition, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid application praying for recalling and reviewing of the orders and also the application filed by the respondent praying for stay of the aforesaid orders passed by this court.

( 2 ). The petitioner filed a petition in this court under section 433 read with section 434 of the Companies Act praying for winding up of the respondent company for their inability to pay the dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 6,89,870. 76. It was stated in the petition that the aforesaid liability of the respondent company as due to the petitioner was admitted and that inspite of the aforesaid admission no payment was made which clearly established that the respondent company was unable to pay its debt.

( 3 ). Notice was issued on the aforesaid petition and the matter was listed before this court for admission of the company petition. By order dated 2. 11. 1993 this court held that the winding up petition is not maintainable and that the remedy available with the petitioner was to file a suit provided the same is within limitation. An appeal was preferred as against the aforesaid order passed by this court which was registered as Company Appeal No. 32/1993. The Division Bench of this court by order dated 29. 11. 1995 set aside the order passed by the Company Judge on 2. 11. 1993 and remitted the matter back to the Company Judge again for disposal of the same in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench. The Division Bench, while considering the matter observed that there was an admission of the respondent of liability of dues payable to the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 6,89,870. 76 and that the Company Judge should have considered the issue of applicability of the provisions of Section 433 of the Companies Act. It further observed that the view taken by the learned Company Judge that entries in books are not evidence is not correct as there was material to fix liability and that the said material is contained in the admission made by the respondent in its reply dated 22. 11. 1991.

( 4 ). After remission by the Division Bench the matter was listed before this court and on 10. 4. 1997 the Company Petition was listed for admission before the Company Judge. However, when the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent and accordingly the Company Petition was taken up in the absence of the counsel for the respondent. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case the court was satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner that respondent is unable to pay the debt of the petitioner and in that view of the matter the petitioner was admitted and citation was directed to be published in Delhi Gazette as also in one issue each of the STATESMAN (English) and DAINIK VEER ARJUN (Hindi ). In pursuance of the aforesaid order publication of citation was done in the said two newspapers as also in Delhi Gazette and the said citations have been placed on record. The citation was published in the STATESMAN on 5. 5. 1997, in DAINIK VEER ARJUN on 3. 5. 1997 and in Delhi Gazette on 8. 5. 1997. After publication of the aforesaid citation the matter was placed before this court on the next date i. e. on 12. 9. 1997 when an Advocate was present representing the counsel for the respondent and in his presence the matter was directed to be re-notified for arguments on 2. 12. 1997 for passing final order. In terms of the aforesaid order the case was again listed on 2. 12. 1997 when arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner were heard. Incidently none appeared on behalf of the respondent on that date. By o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document