The High Court disposed of two winding-up petitions against Assotech Limited noting the existence of an earlier liquidation petition. Petitioners were advised to file claims before the Official Liquidator.
Petitions and pending applications disposed of; petitioners to file claims with Official Liquidator.
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.
$~55 & 59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 644/2016 & CA Nos. 2743-44/2016
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Yogesh Pachauri, Advocate. Versus ASSOTECH LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Mayank Goel, Advocate for Official Liquidator. Mr.Rishi Kumar Awasthi, Advocate for Respondent.
AND
SHRUTI BANSAL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Yogesh Pachauri, Advocate. Versus ASSOTECH LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Mayank Goel, Advocate for Official Liquidator. Mr.Rishi Kumar Awasthi, Advocate for Respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA O R D E R
% 02.08.2016
Both these petitions seeking winding up of the respondent-company/ Assotech Limited are, inter alia , predicated on the alleged non-payment of various sums of money which, according to the petitioners, have remained unpaid, despite service of notice of winding up on the registered office of the respondent company, to which no reply is stated to have been given.
Be that as it may, counsel for the Official Liquidator, who is present
in Court, points out that on 08.02.2016, the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Provisional Liquidator in Company Petition No.357/2015 filed by Manmohan Singh Bhalla against the respondent company.
Under the circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed in this matter.
Counsel for the petitioners also seek to withdraw these petitions and to file appropriate claims before the Official Liquidator as and when such claims are invited.
At the same time, it would be open to the petitioners to take recourse to Rule 101 of The Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, in case they are so advised.
It would also be open to the petitioners to intimate the Official Liquidator about the relevant particulars of the petitioners’ dues from the company with a view to assisting the Official Liquidator in finalizing the Statement of Affairs of the Company; and in carrying out his duties, while making it clear that any such information to the Official Liquidator by the petitioners would not ipso facto amount to the institution of any claim before the Official Liquidator, and which can only be filed in accordance with the relevant Rules and at the appropriate stage.
Both these petitions are disposed off accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
AUGUST 02, 2016 sb
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar Singh
Shruti Bansal
Assotech Limited
Sudershan Kumar Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
