Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29660 (RAJ)

MULTANI PHARMACUTICALS LTD v. RAJ DRUGS AND PHARMACUTICALS LTD

COAP/2/2021 · 2025-05-30

Mahendar Kumar Goyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:22810] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Company Application No. 2/2021 In S.B. Company Petition No.21/2016 Multani Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At H- 36, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Through Its Chief Manager Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Dip Singh Aged About 47 Years And R/o A-161, 1st Floor, West Vinod Nagar, New Delhi- 110092. ----Applicant Versus Rajasthan Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Road No. 12, VKI Area, Jaipur- 302013, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Kumar Mishra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 30/05/2025 This company application has been filed for revival of the S.B. Company Petition No.21/2016: Multani Pharmaceuticals Ltd. versus Rajasthan Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner-company filed the S.B. Company Petition No.21/2016 for winding up of the respondent-Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The above mentioned company petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.05.2017 as infructuous in view of an affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the respondent- [2025:RJ-JP:22810] (2 of 2) [COAP-2/2021] Company extending an assurance to meet out its undisputed liability towards the petitioner-Company out of the sale proceeds of the immovable and movable assets of the Company failing which a liberty was granted to the petitioner-Company to get the company petition revived. Indisputably, the respondent-Company has failed to honour the assurance extended through the affidavit of its Managing Director and the undisputed liability of the respondent-Company towards the petitioner-Company still remains unsatisfied. In view thereof, this company petition deserved to be revived in terms of the order dated 26.05.2017 passed by this Court. Resultantly, the S.B. Company Application No. 2/2021 is allowed. The S.B. Company Petition No.21/2016 is revived to its original number. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/249