SADGUNA SURENDRA KOTWAL Vs. DIGITAL MULTIFORMS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications are arising out of the same facts and are filed with identical prayers to recall order of winding up dtd. 21/2/2006 passed in Company Petition No. 30 of 2005 with Company Petition No. 31 of 2005. The applications are filed on the basis of subsequent events which have taken place so as to recall winding up order and reestablish the registered company, viz. M/s. Digital Multi Forms Ltd. The applicant before the Court is the promoter and original subscriber of the shares of the company ordered to be wound up by the aforesaid order.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that order dtd. 21/2/2005 passed in Company Petition No. 30 of 2005 is required to be recalled and winding up proceedings with respect to company in liquidation is required to be stayed in view of the fact that all the liabilities of the company in liquidation are satisfied. It is submitted that all the liabilities of the company in liquidation are aid of by the applicant-contributor.

(3.) As against this, learned Advocate representing the Official Liquidator submitted that by order dtd. 21/2/2006 in Company Petition No. 30 of 2005, the company was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator was handed over possession of all the assets and properties. The appeals were filed being OJ Appeal Nos. 19 and 20 of 2006 challenging the order of winding up. However, such appeals came to be withdrawn. The ex-management of the company had again filed Company Application Nos. 371 and 372 of 2006 for recall of the order of winding up, which came to be disposed of by order dtd. 31/3/2006 and the earlier order was recalled and Company Petition was restored. Thereafter, also ultimately, the order of winding up dtd. 21/2/2006 was restored as on account of failure of the applicants of Company Application Nos. 371 and 372 of 2006.