2003 (3) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....433(c) and 433(f) read with section 439(1)(c) of the Companies Act. The petitioner's claim is that the respondent-company had the authorized capital of Rs. 1 crore divided into 10,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The petitioner-company holds 2,80,300 shares of Rs. 10 each. The case of the petitioner-company in this winding up petition is that it was persuaded to invest in the respondent-compan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... inspection done at the behest of the petitioner by an independent Chartered Accountant. 2. The respondent in its reply has contended that Mr. Ajit Kumar Gupta who is the Director in the petitioner-company was a promoter director of the respondent-company and had committed to invest Rs. 1,71,66,000 as is evident from the letter dated 16th November, 1995 sent by the respondent-company to the said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Shri Ajit Kumar Gupta about his liability to make any payment. The respondent has also submitted that in so far as the cancellation of the plot at NOIDA is concerned, a writ petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court being CWP No. 2780/2002 and the writ petition is pending. In the said petition there is an interim order restraining NOIDA from making allotment of the plot to any oth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....prima facie satisfactory response has been given by the respondent-company to the claim of the petitioner. The respondent has submitted that it is making full efforts to secure the plot at NOIDA and sustain the company. This is evident from the fact that in CWP 2780/2002 in the Allahabad High Court filed by the respondent an interim order has been filed restraining NOIDA authorities from making al....