IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.09.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN O.S.A.NOS.303 TO 305 OF 2008 Maxworth Orchards India Limited 9, Mahalingapuram Main Road, Mahalingapuram, Chennai – 600 034 represented by its Director N.Ramesh .. Appellant in O.S.A.No.303 of 2008 O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2008 Maxworth Orchards India Limited 9, Mahalingapuram Main Road, Mahalingapuram, Chennai – 600 034 represented by its Director N.Ramesh ... Appellant in O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2008 Vs. 1. Saroj Ramakrishnan 2. K.Alagiriswami 3. Mudukur – Maxworth Land Owners Welfare Association (Regn.No.137/98) rep.by its Secretary, Mummidi Kuppam Road, Mudukur village, via Ulundai, Thiruvallur Taluk & District. ... Respondents in R3 impleaded exparty O.S.A.No.304 of 2008 respondent vide order of court dated 6.1.10 in MP 2/09 1. Anand Seshadri 2. K.Alagiriswami ... Respondents in O.S.A.No.305 of 2008 Prayer: Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.303 of 2008 is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 5.3.2008 made in C.P.No.119 of 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.304 of 2008 is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 5.3.2008 made in C.A.No.1447 of 2007 in C.P.No.119 of 2007. Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.305 of 2008 is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 5.3.2008 made in C.A.No.2267 of 2007 in C.P.No.119 of 2007. For Appellant .. Mr.H.Karthik Seshadri in all O.S.As For Respondents.. Mr.S.Ramakrishnan -party in person for R.1 in OSA.No.304/2008 Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan for R.3 in O.S.A.No.304 of 2008 No Appearance for other respondents COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.BANUMATHI, J.) These appeals arise out of the order dated 5.3.2008 made in C.P.No.119 of 2007 and C.A.Nos.1447 and 2267 of 2007 dismissing the Company Petition filed under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 and allowing the Company Applications and declining to approve the scheme proposed by the Company in its present form on finding that it is detrimental to the interest of the objectors. By the said Common Order, the learned Judge allowed Company Applications filed by the Objectors. 2. When the appeals came up for hearing, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that in view of the appointment of the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator, the appellant is withdrawing the appeals. In view of the endorsement made, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn, as observed by the learned single Judge, it is always open to the appellant Company to formulate a new scheme with adequate safeguards to protect and promote the interest of the persons. However, there is no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar usk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Copy to: The Sub-Asst.Registrar Original Side High Court Madras. 1 cc To Mr.H.KarthikSeshadri, Advocate, SR.54653 1 cc To Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan, Advocate, SR.54706 O.S.A.Nos.303 to 305 of 2008 JRG(CO) RH (22.9.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/