Dismissed

m/s prabhudas hirji and Co. and 3 Ors. v. e-parte- atmaram leasing co.pvt Ltd.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2006APP/871/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed an appeal by the debtors challenging the refusal of the single judge to set aside an insolvency notice. The High Court found the appellants failed to provide material evidence for alleged partial payments, deeming their default not bona fide, and held no interference was necessary.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed in limine without interference regarding the setting aside of the Insolvency Notice.

m/s prabhudas hirji and Co. and 3 Ors. Vs e-parte… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 APPEAL NO.871 OF 2006

¶5

In

¶6

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.21 OF 2006

¶7

In

¶8

 INSOLVENCY NOTICE NO.N/256 OF 2005

¶9

 M/s.Prabhudas Hirji & Co. & Ors. : Appelants/

¶10

 Org.Jdmt. Debtors

¶11

 V/s.

¶12

 Ex Parte:

¶13

 Atmaram Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. : Respondent/

¶14

 Org.Jdm. Creditor

¶15

 Mr.S.K.Chaurasia i/b. Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the appellants.

¶16

 Ms Laxmi Swaminathan i/b. Ms R.C.Shukla for the respondent.

¶17

CORAM : R.M.LODHA & S.A.BOBDE,JJ.

¶18

 DATE : DECEMBER 6, 2006.

¶19

P.C.

¶20

 We heard Mr.S.K.Chaurasia, the counsel for the

¶21

 appellants, and perused the impugned order.

¶22

 2. It is admitted by the counsel for the appellants that
 under the settlement, the entire payment has not been

¶23

 -: 2 :-

¶24

 made to the creditor. According to him, the payment for
 item nos.1, 2 and 3 mentioned in annexure ‘A’ (page 14)
 is admitted by the judgement creditor. He submits that
 further payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was made to Crystal
 Clear Investment by cash. The counsel then submits that
 the default thereafter is bona fide.

¶25

 3. We are afraid that save and except the payment of

¶26

 Rs.5,55,000/-, there is no material or evidence in
 support of the submission of the counsel for the
 appellants that further payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was made
 to Crystal Clear Investment. The appellants have
 miserably failed to comply with the payment schedule to
 the various creditors.

¶27

 4. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the
 learned single Judge refusing to set aside the Insolvency
 Notice does not call for any interference.

¶28

 5. Appeal is dismissed in limine.

¶29

 R.M. LODHA, J.

¶30

 S.A. BOBDE, J.

m/s prabhudas hirji and Co. and 3 Ors. v. e-parte- atmaram leasing co.pvt Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

m/s prabhudas hirji and Co. and 3 Ors. v. e-parte- atmaram leasing co.pvt Ltd.

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

Sajjan Mills Ltd. Vs Ramchandra Hetram Pupta and Anr.

Ripan Wadhwa and Anr. Vs M/S. Sun Pharmaceuitcal Industries Ltd.

M/S. Gms Technologies Ltd. Vs M/S. Plastika Enterprises

Sakar Glazed Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs H and R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors.

sakar glazed tiles private limited Vs h and r johnson (india) Ltd. and 2 Ors.

oil and natural gas corporation Ltd. Vs project engineering and sole prop. of shri kirty dave