Dismissed

Mrs. Lily a. Ghosh v. Smt. Surajben N. Shah and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2005APP/530/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the appellant's appeal. The court held that since the arbitration award was undisputed and insolvency proceedings were properly initiated, and no other effective recovery mechanism was available, the single Judge's order upholding the insolvency notice was correct.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the insolvency petition was decreed as absolute.

Mrs. Lily a. Ghosh Vs Smt. Surajben N. Shah and Ors. — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 Appeal Loding No.l7 of 2005
 in
 Insolvency Petition no. 23 of 2002
 in
 Award No. 6l of l999

¶3

 Mrs Lily A Ghosh .. appellant
 vs
 Smt Surajben N Shah and ors.. respondents

¶4

 Mr.Uday Bobde i/b D P Guehiya for appellant
 Snehal Shah for respondent no.l
 Ms Pradhan lst Master Official Assignee

¶5

CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ.

¶6

 Dated 14.3.2005
 P.C:

¶7

 . Heard Mr.Bobde, learned counsel appearing for
 the appellant and Mr. Shah for respondent no.l.
 Perused the records including the order of the
 learned single Judge. There is no dispute that the
 arbitration award was made in the sum of
 Rs.34,5l,570.50 with interest againt the appellant.

¶8

 There is also no dispute that the petition
 challenging the validity of the award was dismissed
 by the learned single Judge and the appeal
 preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by
 the Division Bench. An insolvency notice has been
 served on the appellant on the basis of arbitartion
 award. The notice of motion taken out for setting
 aside the insolvency notice has also been dismissed

¶9

 by this court. In these circumstacnes there is
 hardly any defence available to the appellant and
 the contention that the appellant isholding certain
 shares, which have been already attached and if
 those shares are sold by this court the amount
 could be recovered, cannot be enteratined by this
 belated stage. It appears that part of the shares
 are held by the husband of the appellant and is not
 prepared to transfer his share holding. Under the
 circumstances the learned single Judge has rightly
 made the petition absolute in terms of prayer
 clauses (a) and (b). In the circumstnaces no
 interference isc alled for with the impugne dorder
 of the learned single Judge .Appeal is dismissded.

Mrs. Lily a. Ghosh v. Smt. Surajben N. Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Lily a. Ghosh v. Smt. Surajben N. Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai and Ors. Vs Vidyadhar Pandurang Rane

Kiran Ranchhoddas Ganatra Vs Rajan a. Ruvala and Ors.

Nagdevi Kamgar Sabha Vs K. M. Desai, Chairman Board of Arbitration and Ors.

Madura Coats Employees Union and Anr. Vs Madura Coats Ltd.and Anr.

M/S R.S.Jhaveri and Co. Vs M/S Ferro-Concrete Co. (India) Ltd. and Anr.

Oyster Marine Inc. Vs the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.