Dismissed

State of a.P., Prakasam District v. M/S. Raghunatha Cotton and Oil Porducts Ltd., Hyderabad and 4 Ot

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Apr 2024COMPA/1319/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A company application by the Commercial Tax Department sought adjudication of its claim at par with workers and secured creditors in the winding up of a company. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, the court noted nothing remained to satisfy the claim and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

None granted; application dismissed with no costs.

State of a.P., Prakasam District Vs M/S… — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI

¶5

Company Application No. 1319 of 2005

¶6

¶7

Company Petition IRCC) No. 13 of 1999

¶8

Between;

¶9

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Commercial Tax Officer Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s. Raghunadha Cotton & Oil Products Limited,
Maddipadu Village, Maddipadu Mandal,
Prakasam District,

¶13

rep. by the Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P.,

¶14

Hyderabad.

¶15

Industrial Development Bank of India,
5-9-89/182, Chapel Road, Hyderabad-1.
3. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited,
1-11-256, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Unit Trust of India,

¶17

13, Sir Vithal Das Thakersay Marg

¶18

New Marine Tanes, Mumbai-21.

¶19

State Bank of India,

¶20

Central Office, P.B. No. 12 Mumbai.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Section 16 (C) of APGST Act, r/w. Rule 9 of Company Court Rules, 1959 praying the Hon’ble High Court to direct the Official Liquidator to adjudicate the claim of the applicant at par with dues to the workers and other secured creditors pursuant to Section 529(A) & 530 of the Companies Act and consequently direct the Official Liquidator to pay the same, if such determination is accepted by the applicant.

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant: GP for Commercial Tax

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri T.V. P. Sal Viharl (SC for Official Liquidator)

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶26

¶27

BSB, J COMPANo.1319 of 2005

¶28

APHC010418232005

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

[3311]

¶31

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH QAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶34

COMPANY APPLICATION NO: 1319/2005

¶35

Between: State Of A.P,, Prakasam District ...APPELLANT

¶36

AND

¶37

M/s Raghunatha Cotton Oil Products Ltd Hyderabad 4^{Other ...RESPONDENT} Counsel for the Appellant:

¶38

1 .GP For Commercial Tax (AP)

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶40

1.12107/M Srikanth Reddy

¶41

2.T V P Sai Vihari(SC For Official Liquidator)

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

The Company Application is filed seeking the following^prayer:

¶44

"...This petition is filed to determine the claim of^{theapplicantatparwith} ' dues to the workers and other secured creditors pursuant to Section 529(A) & 530 and consequently direct the Official Liquidator^topaythe same, if such determination is accepted by the applicant...." 2. The Official Liquidator representing the respondent^filed the counter briefly as follows: 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^' respondent^{submittedthatasperthe} decision of the Supreme Courtin Industrial Development^Bank of India Vs

¶45

¶46

’ BSe^J COMPA No.1319 of 2003

¶47

¶48

Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs and others^^the claim of the with secured creditor and that the petitioner does not stand on priority on par liability of the secured creditor is far more than^{theamountleftandtherebythereis} nothing remined to satisfy the claim of the petitioner,^{nordoesitstandonparwith} the secured creditor as per the above decision.

¶49

In view of the above legal preposition and the financial^{status,thecompany}

¶50

application is dismissed. No costs.

¶51

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand^closed.

//TRUE COPY//

hU SECTION OFFICER

The Official Liquidator, High Court for the State^{ofTelangana,1®'Floor} Corporate Bhawan, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad-500068. (BYRPAD)

¶56

M/s. Industrial Development Bank of India, 5-9-89/182,^ChapelRoad, Hyderabad-1.

¶57

M/s. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited, 1-11-256, Begumpet,^Hyderabad.

¶58

The Unit Trust of India, 13, Sir Vithal Das Thakersay^Marg, New Marine Tanes, Mumbai-21.

¶59

The Manager, State Bank of India, Central Office,^P.B.No.12, Mumbai.

¶60

One CC to Sri T.V.P. Sai Vihari, SC for Official Liquidator,^HighCourtof AP, Amaravati (OPUC)

¶61

Two CCs to G.P. for Commercial Tax, High Court of^AP,Amaravati

¶62

[OUC]

¶63

THREE CD COPIES TAC

' (2023) 10 see 107

WIGfl COURT

DATED:04/04/2024

ORDER

COMPA.No.1319 of 2005

¶69

a:
O 12 5;FP 202^ m
^ Current Section .

¶70

DISMISSING THE COMPANY APPLICATION

State of a.P., Prakasam District v. M/S. Raghunatha Cotton and Oil Porducts Ltd., Hyderabad and 4 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of a.P., Prakasam District v. M/S. Raghunatha Cotton and Oil Porducts Ltd., Hyderabad and 4 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thoti Nanjamma Vs Kanamakinda Venkata Lakshmi

Gadi Balarami Reddy Vs Yenugula Parvathamma

M/S.Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited Vs Musunuru Apparao

The Commercial Tax Officer, W.G.District Vs M/S Padmaja Agro Tech and Oils Ltd., Hyderabad and 3 Others

Sripathi Vijaya Babu Vs M/S.Profit Shoe Company Pvt.Ltd.

Yerra Madhu Babu Vs N.v.Krishna Rao