High Court admits application, issues notice to respondent, parties agree matter covered by previous order. The High Court of Rajasthan admitted the application and issued notice to the respondent, with the Official Liquidator accepting notice. The parties ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
High Court admits application, issues notice to respondent, parties agree matter covered by previous order.
The High Court of Rajasthan admitted the application and issued notice to the respondent, with the Official Liquidator accepting notice. The parties agreed the matter was covered by a previous court order. The winding-up order for the company had been stayed, and no Liquidator was appointed. The court ruled that no leave was needed, but applicants must seek leave of the Company Court as directed in the writ petition, which was granted. The application was allowed for the applicants to proceed with their writ petition before the relevant Bench.
Issues: Admission of application, notice to respondent, agreement on matter being covered by previous order, winding-up order stayed, appointment of Official Liquidator.
In this judgment by the High Court of Rajasthan, the court heard the learned counsel for both parties regarding the admission of the application and reviewed its contents. The court decided to admit the application and issued notice to the respondent. The Official Liquidator accepted notice on behalf of the respondent, obviating the need for further notice issuance. The parties agreed that the matter falls under the purview of a previous court order dated 25-7-2003 in a specific case, which led to the matter being taken up for final hearing.
The court found that the order for winding-up of the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited had been put on hold by a stay order, meaning the winding-up order was issued but stayed, and no Liquidator had been appointed. Consequently, the court determined that no leave was required in this case, but as per the court's directive in the writ petition, the applicants were instructed to seek the leave of the Company Court, which was granted. Therefore, the application was allowed, permitting the applicants to proceed with their writ petition before the relevant Bench.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
