HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Company Petition No.117 of 2013
Date:11.08.2014 Between:
Mr.Brij Bhushan Kumar And:
M/s Totem Infrastructure Ltd, Hyderabad.
……Petitioner … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: None appeared Counsel for the respondent: None appeared The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Company Petition is filed for an order to wind up the respondent for non-payment of the debt due to the petitioner.
This Court has admitted the Company Petition on 23.06.2014 and directed the petitioner to issue advertisement in New Indian Express (English daily) and Andhra Bhoomi (Telugu daily) of Hyderabad editions and file proof of publication.
On 28.07.2014, Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that as his client is not responding to his communication, he has given up his vakalat and requested for a short adjournment to enable the petitioner to make alternative arrangements. Accepting his request, this Court has adjourned the case to 04.08.2014. On 04.08.2014, Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has filed a memo stating that he has given up his vakalat. While taking note of the said fact, this Court has adjourned the case to 11.08.2014 by directing the Registry to print the name of the petitioner. Today, the petitioner is called absent.
Under Rule-24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, where any petition is required to be advertised, it shall, unless the Judge otherwise orders, or these rules otherwise provide, be advertised not less than 14 days before the date fixed for hearing, in one issue of the Official Gazette of the State or the Union Territory concerned, and in one issue each of a daily newspaper in the English language and a daily newspaper in the regional language circulating in the State or the Union Territory concerned, as may be fixed by the Judge.
Despite the order passed by this Court for carrying out advertisement, the petitioner failed to carry out the advertisement and file proof of the same in terms of the said Rule. Further more, the learned counsel for the petitioner has given up his brief and the petitioner failed to make alternative arrangements either by appearing himself or engaging another counsel.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not interested in pursing his cause in the case. Accordingly, order, dated 23.06.2014, is recalled and the Company Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution.
11th August, 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY