ATLANTA PUMPS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. KUNDA J MAJLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short order leading to long arguments based on innumerable authorities. The order under appeal is one under Sec. 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, dt. 10-2-2010 which reads as under:

(2.) The Company Petition had been listed before the learned Company Judge on 3-2-2010, after issue of notice to the respondent-Company. The learned Company Judge had directed the matter to be listed for admission on 10-2-2010 and on 10-2-2010, the impugned order has come to be passed.

(3.) This small and cryptic order is appealed against by the respondent-Company complaining that it can have very serious repercussions on the respondent-Company; that the admission of the Company Petition is one without considering the material on record placed by the respondent before the Company Court; that it is in ignorance of the serious and tenable defence raised in the objection statement filed on behalf of the Company; that the learned Company Judge has not taken into account the very sound financial position of the Company; that it is in ignorance of the fact that the company is a profit making, ongoing company; that the Company petitioner had no locus to present the petition under the provisions of Sec. 433(e) and (f) of the Act for the reason that Company was not even a debtor vis-a-vis the Company petitioner; that the very fact that amounts were claimed as remuneration and allowance payable to a Director after the company petitioner has seized to be a Director of the Company on and after 12-8-2005 by his own act of resignation has not at all been considered by the learned Company Judge; that the order suffers from the vice of being a non-speaking order, for not revealing the nature of examination undertaken and the view of the Court on such examination and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in law.