2017 (6) TMI 1405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....016, whereby the said winding up petition under Section 439 read with Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, preferred by the respondent herein (original petitioner) has been admitted. 2. Heard Mr. Indravadan Parmar, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent and perused the averments made in the application. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the order dated 07.04.2016 may be recalled on the following grounds : (i) There is a misleading presentation of facts with regard to the service of notice of the winding up proceedings. (ii) The legitimacy of the claim of winding up is doubtful. (iii) The petition has not been prefe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any Petition No. 10/2016 in order to ascertain the veracity of the submissions. Notice was issued in the windingup petition by an order dated 19.01.2016, making it returnable on 16.02.2016. This Court permitted direct service in addition to the normal mode of service; therefore, it is clear that two modes of service were permitted by the Court. The first was the normal mode of service through the Bailiff and the second was direct service through the petitioner of that petition, the respondent herein. There are two reports of the Bailiff dated 09.05.2016 and 11.05.2016. It is stated in the Bailiff's report dated 09.05.2016 that the Company, namely, applicant No. 1 herein is closed since the last one year and there is no certain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... admission dated 07.04.2016 was passed, however, it was served by direct service on 18.02.2016 to applicants Nos. 2 to 4 and on 28.01.2016 on applicant No. 1. This means that all the applicants were served by direct service before the passing of the order dated 07.04.2016. The ground for recall of the said order on the basis of the alleged misleading presentation of facts with regard to the service of notice of the windingup petition, therefore, cannot stand in the face of the record. 11. A clarification is required to be made insofar as the order dated 02.03.2016 is concerned. In the said order, it is stated that service has been effected on 28.02.2016. The date mentioned, namely, 28.02.2016 appears to be a result of a typogra....