R.V. Easwar, J.

CO. APPL. No.1261/2007

1. This is an application filed by one Anand Krishna Johari (“the applicant”) under Rule 6 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1995 seeking setting aside of the order dated 14.09.2005 passed by this Court directing the final winding-up of the company, M/s. Cyber Space Ltd. (“the company”).

2. The application came to be filed in these circumstances. A winding-up petition in CP 354/2001 was filed by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) under Section 433 (f) and (e) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding-up of the aforesaid company. It is not necessary to delve in detail into the circumstances which prompted the ROC to file the winding-up petition; suffice to note that it was based on the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation which carried out searches and investigation into the affairs of the company and came to the conclusion that the company had misappropriated monies belonging to several investors aggregating to Rs.11.46 crores. The winding-up petition was admitted by this Court by order dated 12.10.2004; this Court found from the averments made in the petition that it was prima facie satisfied that the petitioner had made out a case. By the same order this Court directed publication of the citation in two newspapers and also appointed the official liquidator attached to this Court as the provisional liquidator and authorised him to seize and take into his charge the assets, books of accounts and other records of the company. The citation in the Statesman (English) was published as recorded by this Court in its order passed on 12.10.2004; however there seems to have been some delay in the publication of the citation in “Jansatta” (Hindi). Be that as it may, after taking note of the fact that the citations were published in both the newspapers, this Court passed an order on 14.09.2005 directing final winding-up of the company, observing therein that nobody appeared on behalf of the company even after the publications. This Court held that in these circumstances it would be just and equitable to wind-up the company. Intimation of the final winding-up order was directed to be sent to the ROC for deletion of the name of the company.

3. It would appear thereafter that the process of winding-up was set in motion and the liquidator took the usual steps contemplated by the Companies Act in this behalf. In the month of November, 2007, however, an application in C.A. No.1261/2007 was filed by the ex-directors seeking recall of the winding-up order as well as the dismissal of the company petition. On 27.04.2004 this Court disposed it of holding that the winding-up order cannot be recalled but gave liberty to the ex-director to file a scheme for the revival of the company in liquidation. An appeal was taken against the aforesaid order to the Division Bench of this Court which by order dated 04.09.2012, appears to have set-aside the order, as a consequence of which this Court on 15.10.2012 restored C.A. No.1261/2007 to its original number and directed the filing of supplementary affidavits from the applicant in support of the reasons for the delay in seeking recall of the final winding-up order.

4. In the affidavit filed on 27.11.2007 the applicant described himself as the single largest equity holder and as a founding director of M/s. Cyber Space Ltd. which statements were questioned by the ROC in his reply dated 20.04.2010, on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the aforesaid description of the applicant is correct. This Court directed the ROC to examine the records relating to the company and file an affidavit stating whether the applicant was the single largest equity holder. This order was passed by this Court on 08.04.2013. On 08.07.2013, finding that there was no progress in the matter this Court issued notice to the counsel for the CBI and also directed the applicant to file an affidavit in support of his stand that he was a director of the company at