Court Issues Non-Bailable Warrants, Respondents Removed from Application

The court issued non-bailable warrants in Company Application No. 24/2004 to secure the appearance of a respondent evading service for 12 years under Section 454 (5) of the Companies Act of 1956. Mr. Rahul Agarwal's name was erroneously listed in the application, leading to its removal from the cause list. In Company Application No. 51/2010, respondents were deleted due to insufficient evidence supporting the case against them, as revealed by discrepancies in the chartered accountant's report. The Rajasthan High Court granted the removal of respondent Nos. 4, 9, 11, 12, and 16 from the application under Section 543 of the Companies Act 1956.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-bailable warrants issued to secure the presence of a respondent avoiding service under Section 454 (5) of the Companies Act of 1956.
2. Deletion of a wrongly named individual from the cause list in a company application.
3. Deletion of respondents from an application filed under Section 543 of the Companies Act 1956 due to lack of evidence supporting the case against them.

Issue 1: Non-bailable Warrants Issued:
In Company Application No. 24/2004, the court issued non-bailable warrants to secure the presence of respondent No.2, Pradeep Sahani, who had been evading service in his prosecution under Section 454 (5) of the Companies Act of 1956 for approximately 12 years. The Commissioner of Delhi Police was directed to execute these warrants to ensure the respondent's appearance at the addresses provided.

Issue 2: Deletion of Wrongly Named Individual:
During the proceedings, it was brought to the court's attention that Mr. Rahul Agarwal's name had been erroneously included in the company application No. 24/2004. As a result, the court directed the registry to remove Mr. Rahul Agarwal's name from the cause list in the mentioned application.

Issue 3: Deletion of Respondents in Application under Section 543:
In Company Application No. 51/2010, the official liquidator, represented by counsel, sought the deletion of respondent Nos. 4, 9, 11, 12, and 16 from the case. This request was based on the lack of evidence supporting the case against them. The chartered accountant's report revealed discrepancies, indicating that the mentioned respondents either were not directors at the relevant times or had ceased to be directors before the winding-up order was issued. Consequently, the court granted the application, deleting the names of respondent Nos. 4, 9, 11, 12, and 16 from the list of respondents in the application under Section 543 of the Companies Act 1956.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issuance of non-bailable warrants, the deletion of a wrongly named individual, and the removal of respondents from an application based on lack of evidence, as per the detailed judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.

---