Go to Top Go to Bottom Zoom In Zoom Out Listen Article Pause Bookmark Quick Print Custom Print Download PDF
Hi Guest , Click Here to Read the rest of this document
2003 JTR(Raj) 1344
2006 1 BC 320 ; 2005 125 CompCas 96 ; 2005 63 SCL 504

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.K.Keshote, J.
Gopal Krishna Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Shahibi General Finance and Investments Ltd. - Respondent
Company Petition Nos. 26 and 27 of 1996.
Decided On : 25-07-2003

An ex-director cannot use the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the company for recovery of his dues.

Act Referred :COMPANIES ACT : S.433

Winding Up Petition - Ex-Director's Right to Winding Up - The court dismissed the winding up petition filed by the ex-director of the respondent company, holding that the ex-director cannot resort to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the company for recovery of his dues.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an ex-director of the respondent company, filed a winding up petition for recovery of his dues.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, being an ex-director, cannot resort to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the company.

Issues: The issue was whether the ex-director had the right to file a winding up petition for recovery of his dues.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ex-director cannot use the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the company for recovery of his dues and should resort to a suit for recovery instead.

Final Decision: The winding up petition filed by the ex-director was dismissed.

For the Petitioner:Rajendra Soni, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ravi Shankar Sharma and D.D. Khandelwal, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

1. - Respondents Nos. 1 and 4 are not served.

2. This is a winding up petition filed by the petitioner for winding up of the respondent No. 1-company.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is one of the ex-directors of the respondent-company. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have raised a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is one of the ex-directors of the respondent-company and he cannot resort to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the respondent-company for recovery of his dues. He has remedy of the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 46,565 allegedly due against the respondent-company.

4. I am in agreement with the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioner being one of the ex-directors of the respondent-company, cannot resort to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

5. In the result, this winding up petition fails and the same is dismissed.

*******

Select Draft

x

My Favorites

    All Category

      Untitled

        Title

        Content

        Add Bookmark

        Selected folder : Select Folder

        Create New Folder
        Customise Print