Delhi High Court
Dimension Investment & ... vs Uday Dutt Associates (P) Ltd on 17 July, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 06th July, 2017
Pronounced on: 17th July, 2017
+ CO.PET. No.394/2013
DIMENSION INVESTMENT & SECURITIES LTD
..... Petitioner
Through : None
versus
UDAY DUTT ASSOCIATES (P) LTD
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate
for Official Liquidator.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
1. This petition is under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956
(hereinafter as 'the Act') by the petitioner through the Official Liquidator
in the capacity of a creditor of M/s Uday Dutt Associates Private Limited
(hereinafter as 'respondent company') as was permitted by this Court
vide order dated 30.08.2012 in Company Petition No.15/2010.
2. The respondent company was incorporated on 18.04.2002, under
the provisions of the Act with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi
and Haryana having its registered office at 515, Mukim Pura, Sabzi
Mandi, Delhi with an authorized Share Capital of `5,00,000/- and the
paid up share capital to be `1,12,000.
3. During the course of investigation in Company Petition
No.15/2010, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) found that
Uday Dutt, promoter/director of M/s.Dimension Investment & Securities
Ltd (petitioner herein) had transferred an amount of ₹8,60,00,000/- to
M/s Uday Dutt Associates (P) Ltd, the respondent herein under frivolous
accounts/heads. There was no explanation by the respondent company for
such amount. The said amount is liable to recovered from the respondent
company which is an associate company of the petitioner.
4. Hence, in Company Petition No.15/2010 Regal Tradelinks Pvt Ltd
vs. M/s Dimension Investment & Securities Limited, vide its order dated
30.08.2012 this Court has permitted the Official Liquidator to file the
winding up petitions against the associate companies of M/s Dimension
Investment and Securities Limited.
5. The Official Liquidator obtained the record of the respondent
company from the Registrar of Companies such as Form No.23AC
auditor's report and balance sheet etc.
6. The office of the Official Liquidator issued the statutory notice
dated 26.09.2012 to the respondent company and its director calling upon
them to return the said amount, and it duly served at the registered office
of respondent company. The notice is neither replied nor any explanation
given hence there is no defence to the averments made therein.
7. Thus, it is a fit case where the winding up order can be passed
against the respondent company in terms of the provision of Section 433
(e) of the Act and that it would be against the interest of public at large in
case the respondent company is allowed to retain the aforesaid amount
unauthorisedly.
8. The respondent had failed to tender any explanation either to the
SFIO or to this Court as to why the said amount was received. Despite
the petitioner having served the respondent company and its director with
the statutory notices, it failed and neglected to respond to the same.
None is appearing either on behalf of the respondent company in these
proceedings.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion
that there is no chance of rehabilitation of the company in liquidation.
Accordingly, respondent - company is directed to be finally wound up
and the Provisional Liquidator appointed by this Court vide order dated
29.10.2013 is hereby appointed as its Final Liquidator.
10. Citations are directed to be published in 'Statesman' (English
Edition) and 'Jansatta' (Hindi Edition).
11. A copy of this order be filed by the Official Liquidator with the
Registrar of Companies within the statutory period, as provided for in the
Act. Let a fresh status report be filed.
12. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
YOGESH KHANNA, J
JULY 17, 2017
M
