Allowed

Elmot Alternators Pvt. Ltd. v. the O.L. of M/S. Elmot Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.(in Liqn.)

Bombay HC3 Jul 2008CA/898/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In company liquidation proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the applicants, the High Court granted leave to the intervener, Rathnam P.V., to intervene, subject to liberty for the applicants to dispute his claim of being a shareholder.

What did the court decide?

Company application no. 898 of 2008 made absolute to allow Rathnam P.V. to intervene in proceedings.

Elmot Alternators Pvt. Ltd. Vs the O.L. of M/S. Elmot… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

 (1) Company Application no.898 of 2008
 in
 Company petition No.645 of 1988
 with
 (2) Company Application No.1312 of 2007
 and
 Company Application No.212 of 2008
 in
 Company Petition No.645 of 1988

¶3

 In the matter of M/s Elmot
 Engineering Co.Pvt.Ltd.

¶4

 The Premier Automobiles Ltd. ..Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

 Elmot Alternators Private Ltd. ..Applicants

¶7

and

¶8

 Official Liquidator ..Respondent

¶9

and

¶10

 Rathnam P.V. ..Intervener.

¶11

 Mr.Kirti Munshi with Mr.Ajay Fernmandes and
 Mre.Vaibhav Warekar i/b
 M/s Govind Desai and Associates for applicants.
 Ms.U.M.Jhaveri for petitioner.
 Mr.C.N.Mehta in C.A.No.898 of 2008 for applicant.
 Mr.S.Ramakantha, Dy.O.L.prersent.

¶12

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARIJ.
3rd July 2008

¶13

P.C.

¶14

 1. Heard Mr.Munshi appearing for Elmot Alternators
 Pvt.Ltd. After perusing the application and affidavit in
 support so also hearing Mr.Munshi, I am of the view that
 interest of justice would be subserved if the intervener

¶15

 Rathnam P.V. is allowed to intervene in these proceedings
 subject ofcourse to the right of Elmot Alternators
 Pvt.Ltd. to dispute the facts set out in the affidavit in
 support and point out that the intervener Rathnam P.V.is
 not the shareholder of the company in liquidation. All
 contentions in that behalf of both sides are kept open and
 without prejudice to the same the company application
 no.898 of 2008 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
 (a).

¶16

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Elmot Alternators Pvt. Ltd. v. the O.L. of M/S. Elmot Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.(in Liqn.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elmot Alternators Pvt. Ltd. v. the O.L. of M/S. Elmot Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.(in Liqn.)

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

Ramesh Keshav Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Amar Engineerg Woks and Anr. Vs Shri K.G.Nair and Anr.

sicom limited Vs marvel industries Ltd. 5 Ors.

M/S. Diamond Metals Corporation Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay, of M/S. Machinery Manufacturer Corpn. (P) Ltd(in Liqn

Prakash S.Ghate Vs Kirloskar Consultants Ltd.

Ashok Organic Industries Ltd. Vs ....