M/S Dcm Financial Services Ltd. vs M/S Cepham Organics Limited
2008 Latest Caselaw 1939 Del

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

                Company Petition No.35/1999

                            Date of decision: 3rd November, 2008

    M/s DCM Financial Services Ltd.              ... Petitioner
               through: None.

                            VERSUS

    M/s Cepham Organics Limited                     ....Respondent
              through: None.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL

        1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
             the Judgment?
        2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

 GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)

*

None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called

out.

This petition was filed under Section 433 of the Companies

Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent-company. On 7th

May, 1999, the matter was adjourned sine die with liberty to the

petitioner to have it revived as and when considered necessary,

on the ground that the BIFR had registered the reference made by

the respondent company.

Contd.....P/2

No steps whatsoever were taken by the parties to proceed in

the matter. The petitioner did not put in appearance either on

March, 2008 or on 15th July, 2008 when the matter was listed. On

the 5th March, 2008, court notice was directed to be issued to the

counsel for the parties.

Notice issued to the counsel for the petitioner was returned

with the report that he left the address. On the 15th July, 2008,

Court notice was, therefore, issued for service of the parties.

On 30th September, 2008, time was taken by one Shri Abhay

Kumar Bhardwaj, who claimed to be attorney of the petitioner

contending that the disputes between the parties stand settled. A

short adjournment was prayed for. It was clearly informed to Mr.

Bhardwaj on 23rd October, 2008 that no further adjournment

would be granted and in case steps were not taken, the petition

would be dismissed for non-prosecution.

There has been no appearance in the matter. There is no

appearance for the petitioner when the matter is called out today.

No steps whatsoever have been taken in the matter since 7th May,

1999. It was stated on the last two dates that the matter stands

settled.

Contd....P/3

Even if the matter has not been settled, it is clearly

evident that the petitioner is not interested in the prosecution of

this case.

This petition is consequently dismissed for non-prosecution.

November 03, 2008                            GITA MITTAL, J
aa