JUDGMENT
Usha Mehra, J.
1. In this case the citation was issued in the “Statesman” (English edition) as well as in “Vir Arjuna” (Hindi edition) And “Delhi Gazeted” in terms of the order dated 10th April, 1997, admitting the company petition for hearing and justifying the winding up of the respondent company. Subsequent thereto review application was filed by the respondent company for setting aside the appointment of the O.L. and of the winding up order of the respondent company. The said application was dismissed vide order dated May, 16th, 1998. The company appeal was also dismissed. Now this application has been filed by the petitioner and the respondent company indicating that the respondent company wants to settle the matter with the petitioner. Notice was issued to the O.L. who has filed the reply.
2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, respondent company as well as Mr. Sanjay Shouri, Asst. Official Liquidator. The main contention of the O.L. is that the parties could not have entered into a compromise unless and untill the claims are invited from other creditors. When asked as to whether any objection or claim has been received, Mr. Sanjay Shouri states that no claim has been received so far. Admittedly the citation in English as well as Hindi Edition and Delhi Gazzete has already been published. Inspite of the citation if no claim has been filed, I see no reason why the parties cannot enter into a compromise. Under Rule 270 of the Company’s Court Rule, 1959 and under Section 391 of the Company’s Act compromise in winding up
petition can be arrived at of course, subject to the sanction of the Court and on the grounds as Court may deem fit. As already pointed out above, in this case the citation was published but no claim has been received by the O.L., therefore, there being no impediment in the compromise the claim of the petitioner can be settled by the respondent company. The Assistant Official Liquidator, who appeared has as such has no objection in case the respondent company M/s. S.J. Knitting & Finishing Mills Private Limited (under liquidation) settles the matter with the petitioner Shri Rishi Pal Gupta Present application has been filed by the respondent company and is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner as well as the Director of the respondent company (in liquidation). Since it is admitted by the O.L. that no other creditor of the company has come forward in the meanwhile in these circumstances I am of the considered view that it will serve no useful purpose to continue with this petition. In similar circumstances the Division Bench of this Court in the Company Appeal No. 26 of 1997 allowed such a compromise in similar circumstances because no other creditor came forward before the O.L. nor filed any claim.
3. In view of the above facts that the matter has been amicably settled by the respondent company, with the petitioner and that O.L. has not received any claim from any other creditor, the petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise recorded in the application in hand. In view of the compromise the citation and the winding up order is recalled. The bank account already attached by the O.L. may be released. The post dated cheques given by the respondent company be handover to the counsel for the petitioner which are given and accepted in terms of the written compromise entered & filed in this court into by the parties. Petition stand disposed. Dasti.
C.A. 294/98.
4. Counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this application and states that he had no intention no infact made and objectionable remarks against the O.L. and it has been done unintentionally, he wants to withdraw the same Request allowed. The application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.