Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
COMP/237/2007 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
PETITION No. 237 of 2007
With
COMPANY
PETITION No. 238 of 2007
=========================================
MAK
POLYPLAST PVT. LTD. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ELYSIUM
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
PAVAN S GODIAWALA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JAIDEEP B VERMA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
MIHIR H PATHAK for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 29/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.
Both these Company Petitions are filed by the respective petitioners
for an appropriate order of winding up of the respondent-Company.
2. Today,
when both the petitions are taken up for hearing, it is stated by
Shri Godiawala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
respective petitioners and Shri Mihir Pathak, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondent-Company, that the petitioner of
Company Petition No. 237/2007 has been paid a sum of Rs. 3,63,535/-
by Demand Draft dated 27/03/2010 as full and final settlement of the
claim of the petitioner against the respondent-Company and the
petitioner of Company Petition No. 238/2007 has been paid a sum of
Rs. 2,05,678/- by Demand Draft dated 27/03/2010 as full and final
settlement of the claim of the petitioner against the
respondent-Company. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties have produced on record the copy of the
aforesaid two Demand Drafts dated 27/03/2010
3. Shri
Godiawala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective
petitioners, has stated at the bar that, on receipt of Rs. 3,63,535/-
by the petitioner of Company Petition No. 237/2007 and Rs. 2,05,678/-
by the petitioner of Company Petition No. 238/2007, (which is now
received by way of Demand Draft), there shall not be any claim by the
respective petitioners against the respondent-Company in liquidation.
4. In
view of the above, Shri Godiawala, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the respective petitioners does not press the present
Company Petitions. Accordingly, both the Company Petitions are
dismissed as not pressed.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top