Vikas Holdings Pvt.Ltd v. Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd

ORDER %

09.11.2012

¶1These appealsunder Section483 of the CompaniesAct, 1956 impugn the ordersdated 5^'' September,2012 of the learnedCompanyJudge ofthis Comt dismissing in limine Co. Pet. No.415/2012 and Co. Pet No.416/2012 respectively fried by the appellants for winding rrp of the respondent Company with costs of Rs.25,000/- in each case. The learned Company Judge has held, the amount in which each of the appellants was claiming the respondent Company to be indebted to them, to be baned by tune. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

¶2We have vide oui"judgmentdated 2"^^ November,2012 dismissedCo. App. No.88/2012 prefen'ed by M/s Beetal Plantation Pvt. Ltd. against anotherorderalso dated 5"' September,2012 ofthe learnedCompanyJudge also dismissingin limine and with costs of Rs.25,000/-the petitionerfor windingup ofthesamerespondentCompany.The factsinthesetwo appeals appearto be similarto that case. The counselwho representsthe appellants hereinwas also the counselfor the appellantM/s Beetal PlantationPvt. Ltd. We have as such enquiredasto why the samejudgmentshouldnotfollowin these appeals also.

¶3The counsel for the appellantshas cited only one differencein the presentappealsfrom the companyappealfiledby M/s BeetalPlantationPvt. Ltd. He has contendedthat in these cases there is an acknowledgmentof liabilityby the new managementofthe respondentCompanyalso.

¶4We have pemsed the documents relied upon in support of the aforesaidplea. The said documentsare the same as in the appealprefened by M/s BeetalPlantationPvt. Ltd. Even othei-wisethe pleaofthe respondent Company in response to the Demand Notice preceding the winding up petitionsin theseappealsalso was ofthe transactionssubjectmatteiofthese appeals being also subject matter of the suit already filed and pending ^ beforethe OriginalSideofthis Court.

¶5We, in the enthety of the facts and chcumstancesand especially consideringthe dismissalnot only ofthe appeal by M/s Beetal Plantation Pvt. Ltd. but also another appeal being Co. App. No.65/2012titled I Sudershan Dhoop Pvt Ltd. Vs. Hotel Royal Plaza (referred to in the judgmentdated 2'"^ November,2012 supra), aie not inclinedto entertaina windingup petitionagainstthe respondentCompanyor to take a different view.

¶6The counsel for the appellantsreiteratesthe request for claiification as madein thejudgmentdated2"''November,2012.

¶7Accordingly, while dismissing these appeals, we claiify that the obsei-vationsof the learnedCompanyJudge that the amountis time baiTed would not come in the way of the appellants establishing in a suit for recoveiyofmoniesthatthe clauniswithinthe periodoflunitation.

¶8The counselfor the appellantsalso seekswaiverof the costsunposed by the leamed CompanyJudge. We are not inclinedto do so. Howeverwe refrain ourselvesfrom unposing any costs of these appeals. CHIEF JUSTICE iJW SAHAIENDLAW, J NOVEMBER 09, 2012 PP

W' * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.APP.89/2012 ROYALTRADERSLTD. Appellant Through; Mr. RajeshAggarwal,adv. Versus HOTELQUEENROAD PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: None. AND 14. + CO.APP.90/2012 VIKAS HOLDING PVT. LTD. Appellant Through: Mr. RajeshAggarwal,adv. Versus HOTELQUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW