RAMESHBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL Vs. BANSIDHAR P. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original petitioners, being dissatisfied by the order dated September 16, 2004, passed in Company Petition No. 51 of 2001 Rameshbhai Ramanlal Patel v. Shree Bansidhar P. Ltd. [2005] 127 Comp Cas 806 (Guj) by the learned company judge, whereunder, the prayer of the petitioners to wind up the company has been rejected, are before this Court.

(2.) MR . Ashwin L. Shah, learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the following judgments:

(3.) IT is to be seen that the appellants father Shri Ramanlal M. Patel and his two brothers and their respective family members including appellant No. 1 were interested in various companies and partnership firms as shareholders. Certain disputes had arisen between the groups of the said three brothers in connection with the management of the said companies and firms. The members of the said three families decided to divide, distribute and/or transfer the control and management of the said companies and firms to respective groups so as to achieve smooth running of each business, after taking into consideration various representations as per the requirement. It is to be seen that in July, 1997, this Court issued an order for closure of the operations of the company on account of carbonizing process done by the company. The matter went to the BIFR and the company stated that it could carry on business of processing. It appears that thereafter, the company could not continue the business of processing, therefore, it entered into the business of warehousing. It is to be noted that appellant No. 1 himself was in the management of the respondent -company. He was director of the respondent -company and chairman of the respondent -company in 1977 -78 and became managing director on February 18, 1980, and continued to be so till April 21, 1986. It is to be seen that the present appellant No. 1, after filing the present petition, filed Company Petitions Nos. 200 of 2001 and 201 of 2001 on his own behalf and in the name of his wife, seeking winding up of the company on the ground that it had lost its substratum and is unable to pay its debts. It is to be noted that in the said two petitions, the amount due was paltry, but for recovery of Rs. 8,000 or so, in both the matters, prayer for winding up was made. In the said matters, money was paid and the appellants were forced to the withdraw their petitions. Immediately, after the said petitions were dismissed, the appellants started pressing this petition and started submitting that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company.