Company Petition No. 59 of 2011 · High Court · 2011
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Aug 2011
- Bench
- B SESHASAYANA REDDY
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013 ss. 433(e), 433(f), 434, 439
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the Company Petition is dismissed as redundant. No costs. Date:17th August, 2011. Cs __________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Petition No.59 of 2011 Date:17th August, 2011
Judgment
Cause title
Grant Thornton UK LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership, registered under the laws of England and Walses under Company registration No.OC307742 with registered office at Grant Thornton House, 22 Melton Street, LondonNW1 2EP, United Kingdom Rep. by its agent Mr.Mahadevan Narayanmoni, 409, Royal Pavilion Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 16. …Petitioner
A n d Taurus Earthmovers Limited, A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 10-83/B, Gokhale Nagar, Ramanathapur, Hyderabad – 500 013. **** ...Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Petition No.59 of 2011
ORDER:
This Company Petition has been filed by petitioner-Grant Thornton UK LLP under Sections 433(e), 433(f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, r/w. Rule 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking an order for winding up of M/s.Taurus Earthmovers Limited-the respondent Company.
Notice before admission came to be ordered on 08.04.2011. The respondent Company entered appearance through a counsel.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Company submits that the respondent Company has already been directed to be wound up as per order, dated 09.06.2011, passed in Company Petition No.82 of 2010. Learned counsel placed on record the copy of the order, dated 09.06.2011, passed in Company Petition No.82 of 2010. Relevant portion of the said order reads as hereunder:
The evidence of RW.1 is crystal clear that the respondent Company has become commercially insolvent and thereby warranting an order of winding up. In the result, the Company Petition is allowed directing winding up of the respondent Company. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court has been appointed as Liquidator. Notice of the order for winding up of the respondent Company shall be sent forthwith to the Official Liquidator in Form No.50 under Rule 109 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, enclosing a copy of the petition and affidavit filed in support of the petition. Pursuant to Rule 114, the Official Liquidator shall forthwith take into his custody or under his control all the properties and effects and the books and papers of the Company and shall take necessary steps for that purpose. The order for winding up shall be drawn up in Form No.52 and two certified copies thereof shall be sent as per Rule 111 to the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator shall cause a sealed copy of the order to be served on the Company as required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 111 and also serve true copy of the order on the Managing Director of the Company by Registered Post. The order for winding up of the Company shall be advertised by the petitioner in Form No.53 in Hyderabad Edition of Business Standard (English Daily) and Hyderabad Edition of Andhra Bhoomi (Telugu Daily) within 14 days. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) with the Official Liquidator towards the incidental expenses within four weeks.
Since the respondent Company is already directed to be wound up vide order, dated 09.06.2011, passed in Company Petition No.82 of 2010, this Company Petition seeking the selfsame relief is redundant.
Accordingly, the Company Petition is dismissed as redundant. No costs. Date:17th August, 2011. Cs __________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Petition No.59 of 2011 Date:17th August, 2011
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013 — ss. 433(e), 433(f), 434, 439.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 17 Aug 2011. The bench was B SESHASAYANA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.