PLASTISAC P. LTD. Vs. GUJARAT LEASE FINANCE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This O. J. appeal has been filed by the appellant which is the original respondent-company, where the present respondent is the original petitioning creditor of a petition for winding up of the company.

(2.) In brief, the appellant challenges the winding up order passed by the learned company judge as merged in the order passed by the said judge in the review application. The net effect of the said order is that, on the factual grounds discussed in the said order, the company is directed to be wound up.

(3.) It may only be mentioned here at this stage and only by way of a background leading up to the winding up order, that the present respondent had filed a winding up petition following a statutory notice under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, that the notice on filing of the petition had been served on the appellant-company, and on its failure to present any defence, the said winding up petition was admitted and also advertised. Even at this stage, the appellant-company did not prefer any defence, and ultimately, the learned company judge passed the order of winding up of the company. As against this order, an earlier O.J. appeal had been preferred, which was however withdrawn with a view to prefer a review application before the learned company judge. The learned company judge then heard and decided the review application and confirmed the winding up order in sub-stance, and with only a minor change in the observation part of the judgment, without affecting the findings and/or conclusions in the said decision.