Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
COMA/271/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 271 of 2009
In
COMPANY
PETITION No. 7 of 2009
=========================================================
BAY
FORGE LTD - Applicant(s)
Versus
NEW
TECH FORGE & FOUNDRY LTD - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
PAURAMI B SHETH for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR VIMAL
M PATEL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 06/08/2009
ORAL
ORDER
The
present application has been preferred seeking directions against
the opponent Company not to sell or deal with the properties of the
Company in any manner pending hearing and final disposal of the
Company Petition No.7/09.
It
appears that the main petition is for seeking winding up of the
Company on the ground that the amount as stated in the statutory
notice is outstanding and has not been paid and therefore, the
respondent Company is unable to pay the amount and therefore,
ordered to be wound up.
It
also appears from the affidavit-in-reply which is filed in the
present application on behalf of the respondent Company that the
respondent Company has approached before the BIFR by submitting the
application and therefore, the matter is pending before the BIFR
since it has been stated n the affidavit that the reference has been
registered by the BIFR.
Under
these circumstances, the winding up order cannot be passed and the
matter will have to be adjourned sine die until the proceedings
under the BIFR are concluded or terminated in either way. If the
applicant has any grievance, the applicant may approach before the
BIFR for appropriate directions or clarifications, as the case may
be.
It
may also be recorded that even otherwise, on the aspects of alleged
action for alienation of the property, at para 7 of the affidavit,
it has been stated on behalf of the respondent Company as under:
7.Without
prejudice to the aforesaid contention, I state that, the
advertisement dated 26.05.2009 was only in respect of takeover of
sophisticated sponge and steel plant and because of typographical
error the heading of the advertisement read as A sophisticated
Sponge & Steel Plant for sale . In view of the said error, the
corrigendum was given in Economic Times on 02.07.2009 clarifying that
it was only in respect of take over, i.e. A sophisticated Sponge &
Steel Plant for take over
Hence,
subject to the aforesaid observations and the recording of the
statement, no further orders.
Application
disposed of accordingly.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
*bjoy
Top