On the basis of a report that no instructions were received from the applicant despite a previous ordered opportunity, the single judge dismissed the company application for non-prosecution as it was listed for dismissal and no advocate appeared.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CA619-11cp754-04.sxw
JP CHAVAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 619 OF 2011 IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 754 OF 2004
Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction .. Petitioner And Shri Radheyshyam Poddar .. Applicant Vs.
The Official Liquidator of Adhunik Yarns Limited (Now in Liquidation) ... Respondent
None for the applicant
Ms. Rupa Sutar, AOL present
CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 10 JULY 2013
P.C.
"1. Company Application is taken out for permanent stay of the order dated 9 July 2009 passed in Company Petition No. 754 of 2004, winding up the company under liquidation-M/s Adhunik Yarns Ltd. On 3 February 2012, the Court had directed that necessary advertisement be published. Thereafter on 20 December 2012, following order came to be passed.
"By order dated 3 February 2012, the Official Liquidator was directed to advertise the fact that the applicant has filed the above application and to invite claims from the workers, creditors, shareholders, etc. of the Company. Paragraph no.4 of the said order stating that the Company application is
1/2
CA619-11cp754-04.sxw
accordingly disposed of was subsequently deleted on an application for speaking to minutes on 1 March 2012.
The Official Liquidator states that pursuant to the advertisement claims have been received from 13 creditors. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he is taking steps to satisfy the debts of the said creditors, accordingly, he seeks eight weeks time. S.O to 14 February, 2013."
2. By order dated 20 December 2012 the applicant was expected to place on record the manner in which the applicant proposes to satisfy the debts of the creditors. Inspite of the above order, nothing is placed on record as to how the applicant proposes to revive the company. The learned counsel states that he has not received any instructions from the applicant.
3. Considering the fact that the order was passed on 20 December 2012 and that no instructions have been given to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, it appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting this application. However, at the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, stand over to 10 July 2013. To be placed under the caption 'For Dismissal' .
(N. M. JAMDAR, J.)
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the company application seeking permanent stay should be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction
Shri Radheyshyam Poddar
The Official Liquidator of Adhunik Yarns Limited
N. M. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
