HARDEEP SINGH DHAWAN Vs. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 134 of the High Court Rules, 1952, has been preferred by applicant/appellant Hardeep Singh Dhawan, challenging the order dated 30.08.2018, by which his application for recall of the order dated 18.07.2003 has been dismissed by learned Company Judge on the premise that no reasons have come forward for delay in filing such application.

(2.) Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, submitted that petitioner/respondent M/s. Ispat Industries Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, filed a petition on 17.03.1998 under Sections 433(E), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of M/s. Team Metals Private Limited. The said petition was admitted on 05.04.2002. The date of hearing of the winding- up petition was published in a daily newspaper 'Hindustan Times' (Jaipur Edition). Since no one appeared to oppose or support the petition, the winding-up order was passed by this Court on 18.07.2003. According to the applicant/appellant, the Directors of the Company learnt about the proceedings of the winding-up much after in the year 2007. Neither there are any dues of the secured creditors nor are there any dues against any unsecured creditors. The claim of the unsecured creditor M/s. Ispat Industries Limited, subsequently known as Jindal Steel and Power Limited, was settled long back. The unsecured creditors vide letter dated 21.11.2007 informed the Bank of Baroda that it has settled its dues with the Teem Metals Private Limited and stated that they would instruct their lawyer to withdraw the matter from the court.

(3.) It is argued that the learned Company Judge, without considering the reasons and the grounds taken in the recall application has summarily rejected the same as there was no delay in filing the application. Learned counsel argued that the learned Company Judge has not assigned any reason whatsoever for rejecting the recall application and rejected the same in a cursory manner. He submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in observing that no reasons were mentioned in the recall application by the applicant/appellant. Reference is made to grounds A to I of the recall application to substantiate the submissions. One of the reasons was that dues of Ispat Metals Limited (now known as Jindal Steel and Power Limited), who filed the petition, were fully settled, which was acknowledged by him in his letter dated 21.11.2007. Thereafter, there was no reason for the applicant/appellant to believe that the winding-up petition is still pending before the Company Court.