High Court Karnataka High Court

Smec (India) Pvt Ltd vs Tdm Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on 21 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smec (India) Pvt Ltd vs Tdm Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on 21 November, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
 
\'1i\%*"«':'"?



.;f  5% V I9?   ' -- .. V  x [
 " ~ ~   * 
}     ' '  

nu THE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAx:;;};r 
BATED THIS mi 213? ,:;vA:xf* GE'  V;2é§3$% 1   
THE HOIWBLE MR. 3{§é§frzc%E§;:~:§A;*§:2 BA xf1éé.REm?
gggg;;a§¥ 3%.; :3 afizerxs



A-I, F£rst.i+'§:x§;?-'3'«V._   
Ch§_g;g Esgeiaég;   _ ' '
yew  1€§3''i}é§R_ ' ' ' » 

ggystni. S.-}f;§:.B_;§1;é@'

SMEC (1::$;.&ia§:§{%i*~*:~i~.::vs§%;e  1;  L 

PETITIGEQER

%% é*B.K%%:n£wg$ua¢:u;¢'Primgc Lizzzfiécd

4u%:;<2;r1z£:d 91%:

.    Arcade:
3 T5, Saégrflfir Chanam Read-
' "Ska-%;éhadi*ipura.m

Eazggaiere-5&0 023' RESPf}'NB'EE"-$1?

{'2.ss§<3aden£ is Sérveé)

¢¢a$¢
'§'E'z§s rC'::smp-zmy Peiiiiasn £3 féiesd zsmiar Secééen é$33(I','v{<:},

--'333(i}(E), 434 and ==13§{})(§) :3? E136 Qumpzmizas Act, E§§6, praying

<2



above pxincip-.53 amouni, a further sum 01'  

accrued £531 20.03.2036 {awards inierféiéi ai .   3&1"! b

acxxruni uf Elie delayed payments. It    

pciiiiunar had issued a sEa£z:iury'iz¢;{ii.:c as :=;1:£. _g~'§jmé:xLii::-F . Even

upon Iexzeipi uf mjiictz,   ack.§§§}v\¥iédged, the

' respunden£«Cump:.my has   make paymeni

within 21 days.   fhafihc prcscrzi peiition is

fiicd.

33.3

  havirzg been served with ihe

nutice V  ihifi" fisiiiitfin 'i3aS" remasim-3d absent, Thereafter, the

 V.  ha-wing..'bm:n Afiiiiiiiitcti an: on 2'}'.7.2G0'7? the petitioner was

 -=:;;».'*.~z£ an adver£iscmei3i in "The Hindu", Efigiish

  _ D'a§iy'<«un gr?'  17.8.2007 and the pciiiiunttr having complied

.4 " 'T  ihez(3rL;i£:r uf this Coari, by its order dated 25.10.2€}0?, while

 endorsed the cuznpliance, found that the samt: was

T "'-- :dé{'eciive, in Lhai, the addrcss tef the Cuunscfi fur the respondent

had been umiiiad and hence, the petitioner was rc;:-directed in take

4

and a fresh nu-[ice in “The Hindu”, English Dailgfun

15.112007.

4. The pctiiiones’, fi1it$I’¢3aflt3f’, Inga»; ;

publicafiun as regards E 2007,
which is found {(3 be in and he-nee, Ebert:
is dut: s;t3mp3ian§>e:_.: lhai that
was an t4’i*xe__ upon a siaitimry

notice i:s?5:i6(i’::1f1d::r S%c§id1:.433{é),”‘i§3éV Izcspondtsni having faiied to

pay lht: hm: requircd undm” {he A:::i, the

V. “€x):}i»1;’#i1§%IL’A

peiiiigntgr haS i:*a;ide.V{:ui a for wiriciingtxp if the rtsspundeni

.’ . h the fulkawing order is passed:

AA , _ (1 ‘Thu petition is afiowcd.

Tilt: re5:ip0nden&–C0mpany is ziirecieei to be woundeup

andar {he provisitms of this Companies Act, 1956.

Q

‘The mag’, English Daily, Bangafoitz e£t;i§gJ:?*jkkk::;~g

beforefifl’ Deoember2003.

The peiiiim siands (§SfK}S€{§–(3{TE£<)(:{:tf{§1!}gi)!. A. 1 V

m?