Skip to content


G.K.R. Pandiyan Vs. M/s. Jai Emu Farms Pvt Ltd - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberComp.Appl.No. 986 of 2016 & in CP.No. 235 of 2012
Judge
AppellantG.K.R. Pandiyan
RespondentM/s. Jai Emu Farms Pvt Ltd
Excerpt:
.....other address of the petitioner company. 5. it is in these circumstances, mr.pandiyan, seeks discharge from the matter. 6. having regard to the aforesaid, the prayer made in the application is allowed. 6.1. mr.pandiyan, is discharged of his obligation to appear for the petitioner company. 7. the application is, accordingly, closed.
Judgment:

1. This is an application filed by Mr.G.K.R.Pandiyan, Advocate.

1.1. Mr.G.K.R.pandiyan, is the Advocate for the petitioner company. C.P: 235 of 2012 has been instituted by Jai Emu Farms Pvt. Ltd.,

1.2. This petition was filed by the petitioner company to seek voluntary winding up.

2. The record shows that, vide order dated 13.6.2014, the petitioner company was directed to furnish details of its assets, and their location etc., in order to enable the Official Liquidator, to move further in the matter.

2.1. Since the needful was not done, on 20.07.2016, further indulgence was granted, subject to payment of cost of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only), which was to be deposited in the common pool fund maintained by the Official Liquidator.

2.2. The proceeding of 01.09.2016 would show that cost was not paid, whereupon, the matter was re-notified on 14.9.2016, as Mr.Pandiyan was not available on that date. Pertinently, it was indicated that, if the directions of this Court were not carried out, as indicated in the previous order, the petition would be dismissed for non prosecution.

2.3. On 14.09.2016, the counsel for the petitioner company reported that his client, had not responded to the communication sent by him.

2.4. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner company was directed to place an affidavit on record, in case, he was desirous of seeking discharge from the matter.

2.5 The matter was, accordingly, posted on 03.10.2016. On 03.10.2016, since the application for discharge was not placed before me on that date, the matter was re-notified to 03.11.2016.

3. Today, the said application for discharge has come up before me .

4. The application is accompanied by a communication, dated 10.08.2016, apparently, sent by Mr.Pandiyan to the petitioner company, informing it, about the directions issued by the Court, which required compliance.

4.2. This communication, however, has been returned, it appears, with an endorsement that the petitioner company has changed its address.

4.3. Mr.Pandiyan says he is unaware of any other address of the petitioner company.

5. It is in these circumstances, Mr.Pandiyan, seeks discharge from the matter.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid, the prayer made in the application is allowed.

6.1. Mr.Pandiyan, is discharged of his obligation to appear for the petitioner company.

7. The application is, accordingly, closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //