IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD O.J.APPEAL No 2 of 2002 in COMPANY PETITIONNo 128 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.H.KADRI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO @ TOPLINE SHOES LTD. Versus ZEUS AIR SERVICES PVT. LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Mr.H.M.G. Murthy, PARTY-IN-PERSON for Petitioner No. 1-2 Mr.P.A. Mehta, for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.H.KADRI and MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date of decision: 05/04/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE M.H.KADRI) 1. Admitted. Learned advocate Mr. P.A. Mehta, for M/s. Nanavati Associates, waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents. By the consent of the party-in-person, Mr. H.M.G. Murthy, and the learned advocate for the respondent, this appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 2. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated September 12, 2001, passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No.128 of 1999, by which order, the learned Company Judge, while admitting Company Petition No.128 of 1999, ordered publication of the advertisement for winding up of the Topline Shoes Limited (original respondent-appellant herein). 3. Prima facie, the claim of the respondent (Zeus Air Services Private Limited -original petitioner) appears to be time-barred. The invoice for the service rendered to the appellant was submitted on March 15, 1995, whereas the Company Petition No.128 of 1999 for winding up was filed in this Court in May 1999. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, we are of the view that the Company Petition itself was time-barred. However, it would be open for the appellant to raise the question of limitation before the learned Company Judge in the proceedings of Company Petition No.128 of 1999. 3. Learned advocate Mr.P.A. Mehta for the respondents states that, pursuant to the order dated September 12, 2001, passed by the learned Company Judge, the advertisement for winding up for the appellant-Company was already published in the newspaper on February 25, 2002. 4. As a result of the foregoing discussion, the further proceedings in pursuance of the advertisement dated February 25, 2002 are stayed till final disposal of Company Petition No.128 of 1999. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. April 5, 2002 (M.H. Kadri, J.) (K.A. Puj, J.) (swamy)