HARISH BANSAL Vs. MOTI FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED
LAWS(DLH)-1983-1-18
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 18,1983

HARISH BANSAL Appellant
VERSUS
MOTI FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PIONEER CONSOLIDATED CO. OF INDIA AND ANOTHER V. INDIA TURPENTINE AND ROSIN CO. LTD. [REFERRED]
ALL BANK V. RAJA RAM [REFERRED]
SHANKAR LAL V. SHANKAR LAL [REFERRED]
LALSO MOTISA SHOP V. BHAGWANI RAMJI [REFERRED]
BABU RAM V. SHAFI-UL-ZAMAND [REFERRED]
KAHIM SINGH V. STATE OF JAND K [REFERRED]
HIND OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RAGHUNATH PRASAD JHUNJHUNWALLA [REFERRED]
SHAH BABULAL KHIMJI VS. JAYABEN D KANIA [REFERRED GLOBE MOTORS V. MEHTA TEJA SINGH,FAO (OS) 53/1982 DECIDED ON 5-7-1983.]
NATIONAL TEXTILE WORKERS UNION VS. P R RAMAKRISHNAN [REFERRED]
ABNASH KAUR VS. LORD KRISHNA SUGAR MILLS [REFERRED]
MOTI FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. HARISH BANSAL [REFERRED]
BACHHARAJ FACTORIES LTD VS. HIRJEE MILLS LTD [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

SACHAR - (1.)This is an appeal against the order of the learned single judge by which be directed the deletion of .the name of respondents 2-to 5 in a petition for winding up filed under Section 433 of the Companies Act against Respondent No. I a Private Limited Company. Respondents are one family; namely respondent No. 3 is the father of, respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 4 is the wife of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 5 is the mother of respondent No. 2.
(2.)It is pleaded in the petition that the company was floated and incorporated by the appellants along with Ramesh Kumar Bhandari, respondent No. 2 who was a' fast friend of the appellants. The petition is filed by one set of husband and wife as petitioners Nos. I and 2 and petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 as another set husband and wife. It is claimed that the company was floated to give equal preference to the three groups as all three' of them were good friends. Respondent No. 3 was said to be ] conversant with business and that is why it was decided to entrust the work of the incorporation to him.
(3.)Respondent: No. 4 is said to have started drawing a salary of Rs. 1500 per month. Respondent Nos 2. 3 and 4 are directors of the company. Allegations are made that respondent No. 2 Ramesh Kumar Bhandari allotted 670 shares to his own family rather than amongst the three groups, 0ns of the persons to whom 310 shares are said to have been allotted is his own wife, respondent No. 4. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2 is trying to sell to respondent No. 5 his mother a flat which was said to have been acquired at Bombay by the society for a sum of Rs. 1,55,000 whereas the appellant/petitioners are even willing to m^ke an offer of Rs. 3 lakhs for the same. On this as well as other various allegations the petition was filed seeking the winding up of the company on just and equitable ground and also on account of the inability of the company to pay its debts, and also praying for any other order that may be made on the premises that shall be just.
;


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