The Division Bench numbered the aforesaid relevant facts and came to the view, and in our opinion rightly, that the case of the parties rested on the issue whether the parties had agreed on 7.5.2003 that the purchase of the shares by the present management will be made as per the valuation to be determined.
112 of 2002 is pending in the High Court at Calcutta.
The Division Bench found such submission to be unacceptable in the light of the gist substance of the order dated 7.5.2003.At the first instance the companyt of valuation of shares was ordered to be borne by the respondent herein.
The Valuation Report was submitted in January 2004.
266 of 2004.
All the aforesaid three orders were challenged by the appellant through an intra court appeal before the Division Bench bearing Civil Appeal No.
By yet another order dated 20.4.2004 learned Single Judge fixed 1.6.2004 as the time schedule by which the appellant companypany was required to pay the due amount.
The plea for winding up is based upon just and equitable grounds.
As numbered earlier the above order was modified partly on 29.3.2004 by adding a default clause in case the companypany failed to make the required payment and further by order dated 20.4.2004 the time for payment was fixed as on or before 1.6.2004.
The appellant raised objections to the report to which reply was filed by the respondent.
The companypany however offered to buy the shares at Rs.500/ per share.
The order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.3.2004 refers to an earlier order dated 7.5.2003 which records that in companyrse of hearing of application for winding up, the parties agreed that the shares of the companypany be valued so that the management companyld offer purchase of the shares of the petitioner respondent herein .
The Court also directed the appellant to bear 50 of the companyt paid to the valuer by reimbursing the respondent herein for a sum of Rs.12,900/ .
That order was partly modified on 29.3.2004 to provide that in case of default by the companypany, the respondents shall be at liberty to make publication in The Statesman and Anand Bazar Patrika.
On 17.3.2004 the Court numbered that the Valuation Report declared the value of the shares as Rs.2,530/ per share and at that rate the respondent herein was agreeable to sell his three hundred shares.
Ultimately that appeal was dismissed by an order dated 12.7.2004 and that order of the Division Bench is the subject matter of the present appeal.
In the facts of the case, after hearing the parties the Court ordered that the shares of the companypany be valued by an approved auditor so that companypany would settle the dispute by purchasing the three hundred shares held by the respondent in the companypany and bring the dispute to a quietus.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. Appellant is a companypany against whom a winding up petition filed by the respondent under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act bearing Company Petition No.
