Official Liquidator filed applications to recover amounts. Due to errors in notice disclosure and inability to serve respondents, the court consigned applications to the record room with liberty to review.
Applications consigned to record room with liberty to review.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
COMPA.NOs.1025/2012, 1218/2012, 250, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 378, 381, 392, 406, 407, 408, 487, 516, 517, 518, 547, 550, 613, 618, 619, 761, 775, 805, 807 and 938 of 2013 IN
C.P. NO. 151 OF 2009
COMMON ORDER:
These applications are filed under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 9 and 11 (b) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, for recovering the amounts from the respondents in the respective applications. The Official Liquidator filed Common Report dated 20.10.2014 stating that this Court vide order dated 04.08.2014 permitted the Official Liquidator to publish notices in these applications in Praja Shakti Telugu daily newspaper and file proof of publication. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator entrusted the notices to an advertising agency with specific directions. The said advertising agency reported the publication of notices in concerned areas of the respective debtor company. But, later hw filed a copy of the letter dated 15.10.2014 explaining that the company application number was disclosed wrongly in all notices and approached this Court and agreed to rectify the same.
It is further submitted that in the statement of accounts invoice particulars are not provided and notices issued by the Official Liquidator could not be served on the respective respondents as the whereabouts of the respondents are not known.
In view of the reasons stated in the report filed by the Official Liquidator, there shall be order of consignment of the application to the record room with a liberty to review it as and when correct address of the respondents is ascertained.
Accordingly, these Company Applications are closed.
_____________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
Date: 21-10-2014 dv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether applications for recovery of amounts should be consigned due to wrong disclosure of company application number and unknown whereabouts of respondents.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Official Liquidator
Respective Respondents
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
