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>Court upholds decision to recall winding-up order due to non-compliance with procedural rules</h1> <h3>State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Versus Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd. & Anr. & Shubhra Sudhanshu Datta. (Ex-Director, Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd.) ]</h3> State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Versus Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd. & Anr. & Shubhra Sudhanshu Datta. (Ex-Director, Indo Bonito Multinational ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of service of the Company Petition notice.2. Compliance with Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.3. Justification for condonation of delay in filing the application for recall of the winding-up order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Service of the Company Petition Notice:The primary contention revolves around whether the notice of the Company Petition was validly served on the Respondent Company. The Petitioner attempted to serve the notice at three addresses: Santacruz, Goregaon, and Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai. All attempts were unsuccessful, with remarks such as 'shifted,' 'unclaimed,' and 'not available.' The Petitioner argued that there was no necessity to amend the cause-title to incorporate the Koparkhairane address since the packets were not claimed. However, the Respondent contended that service of the notice post-admission of the petition was mandatory at the registered address, which was Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai, as per Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.2. Compliance with Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959:Rule 28 mandates that after the admission of a Company Petition, a notice along with a copy of the petition must be served on the company's registered office. The Division Bench in MODERN DEKOR PAINTING CONTRACTS PVT. LTD. VS. JENSON & NICHOLSON (India) LTD. emphasized the mandatory nature of this rule. The learned Single Judge in SKOL BREWERIES LTD. VS. SANMAN DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. reiterated this requirement. The Petitioner failed to serve the notice post-admission at the Koparkhairane address, which was the registered address as per the 'Company Master Details' from the Registrar of Companies. The court held that the procedure could not be short-circuited and that compliance with Rule 28 was essential.3. Justification for Condonation of Delay in Filing the Application for Recall of the Winding-up Order:The Respondent No.2, the Ex-Director of the Respondent Company, filed an application for condonation of delay of 530 days in filing the application for recall of the winding-up order. The delay was justified on the grounds that the Applicant became aware of the winding-up order only on 27/04/2016, and the application was filed on 06/05/2016. The learned Single Judge condoned the delay, emphasizing the mandatory requirement of serving the notice at the registered address post-admission of the petition. The court found that the Petitioner had not complied with this requirement, justifying the recall of the winding-up order.Conclusion:The court concluded that the order dated 14/11/2014 directing the winding-up of the Respondent Company was rightly recalled due to non-compliance with Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the learned Single Judge's decision to condone the delay and set aside the winding-up order. The judgment emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in matters with serious consequences such as winding-up of a company.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
