CL: Where while recalling order of winding up at instance of respondents, Court had directed respondents to pay charges for security of assets of respondent company by way of reimbursement to official liquidator, respondents by not reimbursing expenses were in palpable non-compliance and consequent compounded contempt of order of Court
■■■
[2015] 54 taxmann.com 105 (Rajasthan)
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Official Liquidator
v.
Charanjit Pal Jindal
ALOK SHARMA, J.
SB CO. APPLICATION NOS. 84 OF 2005 & 28 OF 2013
DECEMBER 12, 2014
Section 283 of the Companies Act, 2013/section 456 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 - Winding up - Custody of company’s properties - An order for winding up of respondent company had been passed - Court recalled order of winding up at instance of respondents and directed that during pendency of reference before BIFR, assets of company shall remain in custody of official liquidator and expenses incurred in regard there-to towards security etc., would be borne by respondents - Respondents initially paid security expenses incurred by official liquidator, however, after certain time, in-spite of repeated reminders they did not pay due amount - They contended that material lying in premises of property had been stolen and wasted and properties were found to be in a reprehensible state and thus official liquidator was not entitled to claim reimbursement of expenses for safeguarding of company property - Whether since issue of official liquidator being responsible for 'loss' of 'material' of company from its two sites was sought to be generated on vague assertions without any semblance of specifics, respondents were in palpable non-compliance and consequent compounded contempt of order of Court and thus liable to pay outstanding amount to official liquidator - Held, yes [Paras 12, 13 & 14]
■■■
[2015] 54 taxmann.com 105 (Rajasthan)
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Official Liquidator
v.
Charanjit Pal Jindal
ALOK SHARMA, J.
SB CO. APPLICATION NOS. 84 OF 2005 & 28 OF 2013
DECEMBER 12, 2014
Section 283 of the Companies Act, 2013/section 456 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 - Winding up - Custody of company’s properties - An order for winding up of respondent company had been passed - Court recalled order of winding up at instance of respondents and directed that during pendency of reference before BIFR, assets of company shall remain in custody of official liquidator and expenses incurred in regard there-to towards security etc., would be borne by respondents - Respondents initially paid security expenses incurred by official liquidator, however, after certain time, in-spite of repeated reminders they did not pay due amount - They contended that material lying in premises of property had been stolen and wasted and properties were found to be in a reprehensible state and thus official liquidator was not entitled to claim reimbursement of expenses for safeguarding of company property - Whether since issue of official liquidator being responsible for 'loss' of 'material' of company from its two sites was sought to be generated on vague assertions without any semblance of specifics, respondents were in palpable non-compliance and consequent compounded contempt of order of Court and thus liable to pay outstanding amount to official liquidator - Held, yes [Paras 12, 13 & 14]
No comments:
Post a Comment