1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.404 OF 2002 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.344 OF 2001 Arvind Mehra. ...Appellant Vs. 1.Satish s/o. Jank Raj Kapoor and others. ...Respondents. --- Applicant in person present. Mrs.V.V.Thorat i/b. Ms.Prachi Tatake, for Respondent nos.1,2, 3 & 5. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 27th January, 2009. P.C.:- 1. By this appeal, the appellant who has been 2 brought on record as legal representative of the original petitioners challenges the order dated 28.2.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court declining to admit Company petition no.344 of 2001. Company petition no.344 of 2001 was filed by the original petitioner Ram Parshad Mehra and Smt Kailash wife of Ram Parshad Mehra seeking an order of winding up of respondent no.5 Company on two grounds viz. (i) respondent no.5 Company is unable to pay its debt and therefore, it should be wound up and (ii) it is just and equitable to wind up respondent no.5-company. The learned Single Judge has declined to admit petition on both the grounds. So far as the first ground on which the learned Single Judge has declined to admit the petition i.e. inability of the respondent no.5-company to pay debt is concerned, the present appellant who has been brought on record, as observed above, as legal representative of original petitioner states that he does not want to press his company petition for winding up of respondent no.5 company on the ground that it is unable to pay its debt, with liberty to adopt remedy that is available to recover debt owed by respondent no.5. In view of 3 the statement made by the appellant, it is not necessary for us to judge the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to admit petition on the ground that the respondent no.5 company is unable to pay its debt. However, as the appellant is not presently pressing that ground, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. 2. So far as the second ground is concerned, by consent of parties, the order of the learned Single Judge declining to admit the petition on the ground that it is just and equitable to wind up the respondent no.5-company, is set aside. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents states that she has given consent for setting aside the order, as observed above, after taking instructions from respondent no.1 who is present in court. 3. Company petition no.344 of 2001 is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for de novo hearing and decision in accordance with law. It is made clear that on remand, the learned Single Judge will be 4 required to consider only one ground viz. “whether it is just and equitable to wind up the respondent no.5- company.”. The parties shall be at liberty to make necessary application before the learned Single Judge. All the contentions available to both the sides are kept open to be raised before the learned Single Judge. Appeal is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED,J.) ---