https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244420 A final winding-up order will not be recalled without sufficient cause where the company had notice of the proceedings and the applicant failed to act diligently. The Delhi High Court noted that the company had been served, counsel had appeared in the winding-up petition, and newspaper citations had been published. The applicant's claim of ignorance was rejected because he was not in custody when the provisional order was made, and the record did not support lack of awareness. The Court also considered his position as founder director and largest shareholder, found no due diligence, and noted that no revival scheme had been filed. The application to set aside the winding-up order was therefore rejected. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244420 A final winding-up order will not be recalled without sufficient cause where the company had notice of the proceedings and the applicant failed to act diligently. The Delhi High Court noted that the company had been served, counsel had appeared in the winding-up petition, and newspaper citations had been published. The applicant's claim of ignorance was rejected because he was not in custody when the provisional order was made, and the record did not support lack of awareness. The Court also considered his position as founder director and largest shareholder, found no due diligence, and noted that no revival scheme had been filed. The application to set aside the winding-up order was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244420