Judgment:
1 ORDER
SHEET ACO No.173 of 2012 APOT No.372 of 2012 CP No.91 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MECHANO PAPER MACHINES LTD Versus KESHAN POLYMERS PVT LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :
7. h August, 2012.
Appearance: Mr.Pramit Ray with Mr.S.Ghosh and Mr.A.Sinha, Advocates For the appellant.
Mr.M.S.
Tiwari, Advocate For the respondent.
The Court :- This winding up petition was filed by two creditors having a claim of Rs.28 lacs approximately.
At the pre-admission stage the learned Judge directed furnishing of security to the extent of Rs.15 lacs and in default advertisement in newspaper.
The Company preferred an appeal.
The Division Bench asked the Company to deposit Rs.10 lacs and disposed of the appeal.
The Company did not do so.
Advertisement was published.
At this stage the Company again approached the Division Bench for clarification of the earlier order.
The second application came up before us on June 29, 2012 when we dismissed the said application after recording the fact that the Company set apart a sum of Rs.15 lacs in their bank account.
However, in the process they delayed it by 20 days.
We observed, it is for the learned Judge to consider.
The matter appeared at the post advertisement stage before the learned Single Judge on July 3, 2012 when two group of Advocates appeared for the Company.
They both claimed to be the authorized representative of the Company.
The learned Judge observed that such situation was a good ground for Company being wound up.
Be that as it may, His Lordship gave direction for filing affidavits.
Being aggrieved, one fraction of the Company has not come up before us in appeal.
Mr.Pramit Ray, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that there is also a suit pending between the two groups of Directors and as per the order of the Division Bench his clients are authorized to represent the Company.
Hence the other groups do not have any authority.
On the winding up petition Mr.Ray contends that the learned Judge should have considered the desire of the Division Bench as expressed in the order dated June 29, 2012.
In our view, Mr.Ray misread our order.
We dismissed the application by expressing our doubt whether we could entertain the same made in a disposed of appeal.
While doing so we merely observed that it was open for the learned Judge to consider this aspect.
We did not issue any mandate.
We are also not sure whether our order was placed before His Lordship.
We express our doubt as Mr.Tiwari appearing for the creditor submits so.
The order dated July 3, 2012 did not reach its finality on any issue.
The observation of His Lordship as referred to above was prima facie in nature.
His Lordship directed winding up proceeding to be heard at the final stage upon affidavits.
We are told, Mr.Roy’s client did not file affidavit within the stipulated date.
They would be at liberty to approach the learned Single Judge for extension.
We do not find any scope for interference.
The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
There would be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(BANERJEE, J.) (SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA).J.) dg/