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>Delhi High Court Upholds Winding-Up Order Despite Applicant's Claim of Unawareness</h1> <h3>Registrar of Companies Versus Cyber Space Ltd.</h3> Registrar of Companies Versus Cyber Space Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Setting aside the order directing final winding-up of the company.2. Recall of the winding-up order and the dismissal of the company petition.3. Applicant's claim of unawareness of winding-up proceedings.4. Diligence of the applicant in opposing the winding-up proceedings.5. Comparison with a similar case from the Gujarat High Court.Issue 1: Setting aside the order directing final winding-up of the companyThe application filed sought setting aside of the order dated 14.09.2005 directing the final winding-up of the company, M/s. Cyber Space Ltd. The winding-up petition was filed by the Registrar of Companies based on misappropriation of funds. The court directed publication of citations in newspapers and appointed the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator. The final winding-up order was passed on 14.09.2005 due to non-appearance of the company, leading to the deletion of the company's name.Issue 2: Recall of the winding-up order and the dismissal of the company petitionAn application was filed by ex-directors seeking recall of the winding-up order. The court initially disposed of the application but later set it aside, leading to a restoration of the application. The applicant claimed to be the single largest equity holder and founding director of the company, which was questioned by the ROC. The court directed the ROC to examine records to verify the applicant's claims.Issue 3: Applicant's claim of unawareness of winding-up proceedingsThe applicant claimed unawareness of the winding-up proceedings due to being in custody from March 2005 to July 2007. The applicant argued that he was not aware of the final winding-up order and sought its recall upon obtaining bail in July 2007. The applicant cited a case from the Gujarat High Court to support the recall of the winding-up order due to lack of awareness during incarceration.Issue 4: Diligence of the applicant in opposing the winding-up proceedingsThe court analyzed the diligence of the applicant in opposing the winding-up proceedings. It was noted that the applicant, being a founder director and largest shareholder, should have been more diligent. The court found it improbable that the applicant was unaware of the proceedings, especially considering the communication among directors and the service of court orders on the company. The court concluded that the applicant failed to display sufficient diligence.Issue 5: Comparison with a similar case from the Gujarat High CourtThe court compared the present case with a similar case from the Gujarat High Court where the managing director was unaware of the winding-up proceedings due to incarceration. The court highlighted the differences in the two cases, emphasizing that the company in the present case was represented in court proceedings, and the applicant had opportunities to resist the winding-up proceedings. The court rejected the application, citing lack of merit and diligence.The judgment by the Delhi High Court dismissed the application seeking to set aside the final winding-up order of M/s. Cyber Space Ltd. The court found the applicant's claim of unawareness during incarceration unconvincing, emphasizing the applicant's lack of diligence as a founder director and largest shareholder. The court compared the case with a similar one from the Gujarat High Court, highlighting the differences and concluding that the application lacked merit.
TaxTMI 