TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal challenging winding-up order dismissed as belated and lacking legal basis. No provision for recall.</h1> <h3>A Mallikarjunappa Versus Standard Industrial Engg. Co.</h3> The court dismissed the appeal challenging the order for winding up the respondent-company, which was affirmed in a previous appeal by the company itself. ... Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up Issues:Appeal against order dismissing application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and recalling order for winding up of respondent-company.Analysis:The appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and two other applications related to recalling the order for winding up the respondent-company. The original order for winding up the company was passed in Company Petition No. 180 of 2001. The appeal primarily contests the order allowing the Company Petition and ordering the winding up of the company.The appellant, claiming to be a former director of the company, filed applications seeking to recall the original winding-up order due to the company's inability to repay debts. However, the learned Single Judge found the application to be belated and dismissed it along with the application for condonation of delay. The appellant argued that he was unaware of the proceedings and was willing to discharge the company's liability, contending that there was no need for the company to be wound up.The court noted that the main order for winding up the company had been appealed against by the company itself and affirmed in the appeal. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no basis for the present appeal to be entertained separately as the original order had already been affirmed and did not stand independently for examination. The court emphasized that the order had merged in the appeal by the company, and retracing those steps was not permissible.The court determined that the application filed by a former director of the company, now claiming interest in the company, was not legally sustainable. It was clarified that there was no provision in law for such an application, and the court could not entertain an appeal or applications of this nature. Consequently, the appeal and the application for stay were both dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
