1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION LOD. NO.591 of 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.684 OF 2005 In the matter of sections 433, 434 & 439 of the Companies Act, 1956; And In the matter of winding up of MTZ Industries Ltd formerly known as MTZ (India) Ltd, a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Unit No.1, Plots A-126 and A-126-1, MIDC Industrial Area, Near MIDC Telephone Exchange, Dombivali, Dist. Thane 421 203. M/s.Pioneer Dye Chem Corporation .. Petitioners Versus MTZ (India) Ltd. .. Applicant/Org.Respondent Mr.Rajiv Pandey i/b. PRS Legal for applicant Dr.T.Pandian, O.L. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28th January 2011. P.C.: . The petitioners and their advocate is absent, though duly served. 2 2 This is an application by the respondent-company to recall the exparte order of winding up principally on the ground that the respondent-company is a Sick Industrial Company within the meaning of section 2(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. In the affidavit-in- support it is stated as under: “3. I say that the applicant (respondent company in the Company Petition) is a sick industrial company as defined under the SICA and its reference being Case No.133 of 2005 is registered with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) since 6.7.2005. The company was declared by the BIFR to be sick industrial company vide its order order dated 11.9.2006.” “4. I say that at present a rehabilitation scheme is under formulation and the Company has submitted a draft rehabilitation scheme to the operating Agency which is presently being examined by the Operating Agency for its viability and feasibility.” 3 It is also stated that on the relevant date the advocate representing the applicant/respondent was not present and therefore these facts could not be pointed out. The applicant became aware of the order of winding up only when a notice dated 8th October 2010 was received by one of the employees. 4 In these circumstances and finding that there is no denial of above statements so also bearing in mind the contents of the annexures and on reading of section 22(1) of the Act, the company application is made absolute 3 in terms of prayer clause (a). Petition be now heard in accordance with law. The benefit of this order will not be available to the applicant unless affidavit of service is filed within a period of two weeks from today. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)