R GANESHA Vs. H R ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed by a creditor of the second respondent -company which is now ordered to be wound up. The circumstances in which the petition for winding up came to be filed are that the first respondent in this application had supplied and delivered three rubber lined tanks to the second respondent herein. The value of those tanks had not been paid. Therefore, it got issued a notice as contemplated under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, demanding the value of the goods aforesaid. In spite of notice, the demand not having been complied with, the petition for winding up was filed under section 433(e) of the Companies Act. Thereafter, necessary steps were taken to advertise the petition pursuant to the orders of this court. Even so, there being no response from the second respondent, this court passed an order directing the winding up of the company.

(2.) NOW , the second respondent -company has come forward with this application seeking recall of the order of winding up dated July 4, 1991. No other creditor has appeared before this court seeking an order of winding up or in support of the creditor who had sought winding up of the second respondent -company.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the first respondent, who is the petitioner in Company Petition No. 78 of 1989, seeks leave of the court to withdraw the company petition. The company petition is dismissed as withdrawn.