Shree Hanuman Hardware Co. v. Minwool Rock Fibres Limited

^, ^ ^-c IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR COMPANY PETITION No.

°^- /2014 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SHREE HANUMAN HARDWARE CO., PETITIONER •^P^O ^'>- y a partnership firm within the €>.

-<•,..'•'•• '^ / 1.0. \p'| i,^.L Gw^.^w?£ ^s^^^.^ \ meaning of the Indian Partnership f-^.

Act, 1932 having its place ofbusiness at 135, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata - 700001.

VERSUS

C^>1 ^ <^^:'

.

<%-' :.^ ^.^~ y MINWOOL ROCK FIBRES LIMITED, a ^ company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Post Box No.26, 42, Vardmaan Nagar, Village Rewagahan, Rajnandgaon, Chattisgarh - 491441 j ':o''.SHREEHANUMANHARDWARE~Co.aM ^r^^^^ Partners

€?vl^r?jx<%^ "^.

'^(^wfi^.^W\y'

^v G^.^1^ ^t|!

PETITION FOR WINDING UP U/S 433. 434 AND 439 OF THE COMPANIES ACT. 1956

-'^ .. '^. ::"'''':

'< '

^ ^•^:

HC-78 ^ ^ ^ ^3:5g'<<l<ll(l<l, OTfl<^<l<$, Rldl'yy ^Wdl 3RW^R..^.>^.P, .1 ^. [^. ............^ 201 ^[^f q=R? ( ^ci^qSl) wNr^RT^WR wn^i^rsRRrNi ^WIW W ^t*ii*<(*iT'9 (^<<S <FJ|<<-|< ^^iRm^n^r SB : HON»BLBMR. JUSTlCE P. SAM KOSHY 24.12.2014 ^ for the petitioner.

Shri Vivek Chopra, cjounsel for the respondent. Shri S. I. Ali,couhse] 1 of the instant petition was The ground for filin^ debts by the respondent the non-clearance of th^ petitioner company to the company payableto thej tuneofRs. 18,51,171.

u-ties entering appearance Counsel for"thep| :hat the two companies, by before the Court submit d the dispute between each now, have mutually settl^ ottier and a cons^nf letteilhas also been issued in this regard which is Annexujj-e R-1/1 executed between ~:1, / ,"1/ '

'• '.

•- '..

^ '., the petitioner and the res^ondent company.

submissions made by the In the light of the counsel appearing for eitli ofthe contents of the conl |er side and also taking note ^ent letter, the parties to the consent letter i.e. the p^ firra herein are bound by\ as is envisaged in the con| ^itioner and the responderit the ternis of the agreement ^ent letter.

Counsel for the pe^ itioner submits that in the light of the consent lejtter, the grievance of the petitioner stands redr^ssed and therefore the petitioner Company at tfliis stage does not v^aat to

'S^^TPTIWT, ^Tft'M'iKi, RtdKI^ -^y ^W<4l5bU14)...OS»n^..!^............^2Ql sn^rqsioR (T^p^tf) y ^T^r^Tf^ri^ wn^i^sh^w f% ^l^i^4t»i^l+1clil'8 fe^ <&1<€1< ^^RffTW^l '^H§H:^f^^n^ pursue the petition any furl|her settlement arrived at between khe Let the consent letter bel and the Company Petition is in the light of the settleirient in the light of the parties.

made part of this order c^ismissed as not pressed ^ntered into between the ^r.,-- - parties as per the consent lett<| Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge )"'

^t^<ft^ ^7n-cyq/-<pTy- FS/1-7/2014-2,00,000.