Official Liquidator sought direction to hand over company assets. Court found respondents absent despite publication of notice. Proceeding dropped for want of particulars with liberty to initiate afresh. Disposed of as Dasti.
Proceedings dropped for want of particulars with liberty to initiate afresh in future, if permissible in law.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CP No. 126 of 2006. [O&M] Date of Decision: 23rd January, 2013.
M/s S.K.Cotex Limited Versus
Petitioner
Shri Mohan Lal & Ors. Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
**
Present: Mr. D.P.Ojha, Official Liquidator.
**
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]
In this petition under Section 456 read with Sections 468,538 of the Companies Act, 1956, Official Liquidator seeks a direction to the respondents to hand-over possession of assets, properties, action claims, books of accounts and records etc. of M/s S.K.Cotex Limited-Company-in-Liquidation.
This Court vide orders dated 27.03.2008 and 22.07.2010 has already dispensed with issuance of notice to respondents No. 2, 4 to 8 as they were not found to be the Directors of the Company at the relevant time. Consequently and finally, show cause notice was issued to respondents No. 1 and 3 only. However, they could not be served for want of correct and latest address. Finally a notice was published in the newspapers on 31.01.2012 and a report dated 11.05.2012 of the Official Liquidator to this effect has been placed on record. Despite that, respondents No. 1 and 3 have not put in appearance. Their whereabouts are still not known. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate not to continue with these proceedings and the same are hereby dropped for want of particulars but with liberty to initiate afresh in future, if so permissible in law.
Disposed of. Dasti .
January 23, 2013. dinesh
( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Section 456 read with Sections 468 and 538 of the Companies Act, 1956 should be continued against respondents who cannot be served despite publication of notice.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s S.K.Cotex Limited
Shri Mohan Lal
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
