2017 (10) TMI 906

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inter alia that winding up order(s) were procured by the petitioners in collusion with the respondent company and its ex-directors. 2. It is alleged the petitioners are relatives of the ex-directors of the respondent company and have filed this petition on the allegations that the company owe an amount of Rs. 22.63 Lac to them which the company could not pay. It is alleged the statutory notice was sent to the company on 12.01.2009 but strangely was served personally to the managing director on the very next day i.e., 13.01.2009. Since the payments were not made deliberately and no reply to the statutory notice was sent; this company petition was filed by the petitioners. Though the advocate for the respondent company appeared and sought ti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued cheques worth Rs. 8,95,05,000/- in favour of the applicant during the period from 11.01.2008 to 15.05.2008 and cheques of Rs. 2.50 Crore were dishonoured. The respondent No.4 herein i.e. ex directors of the respondent company in liquidation gave personal properties as collateral. However, it is an admitted case that due to bad stock market conditions, the respondent company suffered losses and though it paid money to the applicant even by selling personal assets of its directors, but since the position of the share market did not improve the respondent company went in losses. 5. The matter was taken to the arbitral tribunal of NSEIL, which on 31.01.2010 gave an award to the tune of Rs. 6,34,26,088/- in favour of the applicant and again....