Dismissed

M/S.Choudhari Metal Syndicate v. M/S.Arjandas Metal Industries Pvt.Ltd.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2007CP/885/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay dismissed a company petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, holding that winding up proceedings cannot entertain the claim pending while a parallel suit with unconditional leave to defend is still adjudicating disputed facts, though the petition was disposed of with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty to approach the court subsequently.

M/S.Choudhari Metal Syndicate Vs M/S.Arjandas Metal… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

ssm

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

O.O.C.J.

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 885 OF1999

¶5

M/s.Choudhary Metal Syndicate...Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s. Arjandas Metal Industries...Respondents.
Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

Mr. R.D.Dave i/by M/s. N.N. Vaishnawa & Co. for
the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. K.T.Kukreja i/by Kukreja & Co. for the
respondents.

¶10

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

¶11

DATED : 11th October, 2007.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1. As respondent company failed to pay the amount
claimed by the petitioners, the provisions of Sections
433 and 434 of the Companies Act, have been invoked by
this present petition. On 17th January, 2000 the
petition was admitted and ordered to advertise. None
appeared for the respondent company at that time. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further
made statement that there was a petition pending
advertisement at any point of time. The respondent
company has filed reply to this company petition dated
13th September, 2007 and resisted that claim. The
specific defence is that the petitioners have
admittedly filed suit No. 268 of 1999 in respect of
the same claim. An ex-parte decree dated 10th July,

¶14

( 2 )

¶15

2000 thereafter, also set aside by consent. By order
dated 12th August, 2003 the Court has granted
unconditional leave to defend the suit.

¶16

2. After considering the reply and in view of the
fact that the Court has already granted unconditional
leave and the same suit is still pending, I am of the
view that this is not the case where the company Court
should exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner
as various disputed questions of facts involved and
the same unless finalized and settled, the claim as
such cannot be entertained at this stage of the
proceedings as initiated by the petitioner.

¶17

3. However, keeping all points open, the present
company petition is disposed of, with liberty.

¶18

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

M/S.Choudhari Metal Syndicate v. M/S.Arjandas Metal Industries Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Choudhari Metal Syndicate v. M/S.Arjandas Metal Industries Pvt.Ltd.

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

The Sotate of Maharashtra Vs Janardan Vadudeo Gharat and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Dharma Naik

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri K.D. Patil and Anr.

Asia Today Ltd. and Anr. Vs Time and Space Media Entertainment Promotions Ltd.

M/S.Ashish Sulphur Dyes Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S.Bhansali Organic Pvt. Ltd.

Ankit Tradesec Ltd. Vs Progressive Securities Pvt.Ltd.