1 mss CA523 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2011 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 682 OF 2007 SMT. SNEHAL R. KOTHARI .. PETITIONER Vs. UVI HOLIDAYS LTD. .. RESPONDENT AND Mr. WILSON FERNANDEZ former Managing Director of UVI Holidays Ltd. .. APPLICANT Vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR of UVI Holidays Ltd. .. RESPONDENT WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 524 OF 2011 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 684 OF 2007 2 mss CA523 SMT. KUSUM SHAH .. PETITIONER Vs. UVI HOLIDAYS LTD. .. RESPONDENT AND Mr. WILSON FERNANDEZ former Managing Director of UVI Holidays Ltd. .. APPLICANT Vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR of UVI Holidays Ltd. .. RESPONDENT Mr. R. P. Sakhadei for the applicant Mr. Dhaval Deshpande i/b Thakore Jariwala & Ass. For R-2 Mrs. Rupa Sutar, Asstt. OL CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 1/12/2011 P.C. This is a company application seeking to recall an ex parte order of winding up passed against the Respondent company. 2. This court has proceeded on the basis that the company has failed to appear despite receipt of the petition and acknowledgment of the petition 3 mss CA523 having been received is filed. The petition was admitted on 16th of August, 2008 and it is stated to have been served on the respondent thereafter. 3. However, in the affidavit-in-support, a specific statement has been made that the respondent company had shifted its registered office from 101, Runwal Residency, 2nd floor, D. K. Sandu Marg, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 to Hira Building, Ground Floor, Mint Road, Opposite GPO, Fort, Mumbai 400 001, w.e.f. 28/12/2005. The necessary certificate of change of registered office has been issued by the Registrar of Companies and a copy thereof is annexed as annexure to the affidavit-in-support. The registered office is stated to have been shifted w.e.f. 28/12/2005. 4. I called for the record of this petition and the petition contains a statement that prior to the filing of the petition, the statutory notice was addressed to the respondent clearly showing that it was addressed at the Chembur office. Even if it is addressed at the Chembur office, the averment made in the petition is that the notice is returned with the postal remark “left”. 5. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition would make it clear that the 4 mss CA523 statutory notice has been returned back unserved. Even in the body of the above petition, the address of the respondent is shown to be the same Chembur namely Runwal Chambers, 2nd floor, 1st Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 71. Therefore, the Registry’s notice must also have been addressed to this office. It is in such circumstances that, I am of the opinion that the necessary presumption that the company has failed to appear despite receipt of the statutory notice or of the proceedings filed in this court cannot be raised against the respondent. It is not necessary to grant any time to the applicant original petitioner to file reply once the above noted position emerges from the record of the proceedings. 6. In these circumstances delay in filing this application is condoned. The ex parte order passed on 23rd March, 2011 for winding up the respondent is recalled and set aside. The company petition is restored to file and shall be heard on merits and in accordance with law. 7. The applicant’s advocate states that he would file his vakalatnama in the main petition and now the respondent company has its registered office at the address mentioned in the present proceedings namely the company application and particularly at Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai. 5 mss CA523 8. No order as to costs. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)