ASSOCIATED JOURNALS LTD Vs. MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on July 11,2006

ASSOCIATED JOURNALS LTD Appellant
VERSUS
MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SUMAN JAIN VS. JAIMALA JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-259] [REFERRED TO]
MEDISPHERE MARKETING P LTD VS. MEDI TRADE MEDICAL TRADING [LAWS(DLH)-2008-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
DUNLOP INDIA LTD VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
NARMADA CHEMATUR PETROCHEMICALS LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHP HOLDINGS LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-8-179] [REFERRED TO]
BAADER BETEILIGUNGS GMBH VS. PARSOLI MOTOR WORKS (P.) LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2012-6-139] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LTD. VS. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON [LAWS(GAU)-2014-6-45] [REFERRED TO]
TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED, WEST BENGAL VS. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA & ANOTHER [LAWS(IP)-2012-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
SEVERN TRENT WATER PURIFICATION INC. VS. CAPITAL CONTROLS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-84] [REFERRED TO]
NAFAN B.V. AND ORS. VS. SAF YEAST COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-151] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH BHAGWATPRASAD HUF VS. BHUPENDRA BHAGWATPRASAD PATEL & OTHERS [LAWS(GJH)-2015-11-143] [REFERRED]
P OBULA REDDY AND ORS VS. RAYEN STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS [LAWS(NCLT)-2016-12-15] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.)NONE appears for the appellant despite service of notice on the appellant.
(2.)IT appears that the previous counsel sought direction from this Court to discharge him as advocate-on-record. Notice was also sent by speed post A.D./Courier to M/s. Associated Journals Ltd., Lucknow, U.P. and M/s. Associated Journals Ltd., New Delhi requesting them to contact them otherwise they will not be in a position to attend to the above matter and will seeks direction from this Court for discharge as advocate-on-record. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 12.04.2006, a submission was made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no reply has been received from the addressee till date and, therefore, further time may be granted. The matter was adjourned by four weeks. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. The counsel is also not present in the Court.
We have heard Ms. Pragya Singh Baghel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the original record which has been received from the High Court.

This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 27.10.1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Company Appeal No.1 of 1994. By the said order, the High Court dismissed the said Company Appeal holding inter alia that the learned Company Judge did not commit any error of law in allowing the appellant to file fresh affidavit to remove the defects in verification of the Company Petition. The High Court further held that the finding of the learned Company Judge regarding the sufficiency of the reasons for advertisement were not final.

(3.)THE said Company Appeal No. 1 of 1994 which has been dismissed by the High Court had been filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 10.01.1994 passed by the learned Company Judge of the said Court in Company Petition No.3 of 1987 whereby the respondent, namely, the Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. were directed to file a fresh affidavit to remove the defect in the verification accompanying the said Company Petition and thereafter for the listing of the petition for passing orders regarding advertisement.
We have perused the grounds of appeal filed in this Court. It is stated in the grounds that the learned Company Judge had reached a primafacie conclusion that the debt being claimed by the respondent in the Winding Up Petition was payable by the appellant and that the defence purported to be raised on behalf of the respondent company was not a bonafide defence and cannot be validly considered effective enough to refuse the order of advertisement. The respondent was allowed to file a fresh affidavit correcting the defect in the verification of the Winding Up Petition filed by the respondent and further fixed the Winding Up Petition for passing orders regarding advertisement.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.