Allowed

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. Parasram Purohit

Bombay HC19 Jun 2008CA/914/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a company application to set aside winding up proceedings, the court noted that the Officer Liquidator (O.L.) could not proceed within the recalled order of January 8, 2008. Upon the O.L.'s assurance that communications would be withdrawn and proceeds returned, the petitioner's company petition was made absolute and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The company petition was made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c)

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs Parasram Purohit — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.914 OF 2008
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.48 OF 2004
Parasram Purohit.. Petitioner
Versus
Lloyd Steel Industries Ltd... Respondent

¶4

Mr.C.R.Naidu with Ms.Usha Shrivastava i/b.
Consulta Juris for applicant - respondent
Mrs.U.K.Shah i/b. K.D.Shah for petitioner
Mr.Ramakantha, Dy.O.L.

¶5

CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE:19th June 2008

¶6

P.C.

¶7

.In the light of the fact that this Court
recalled the earlier order dated 8th January 2008
and adjourned the proceedings sine die, it is
obvious that the O.L. cannot step in. It is
brought to my notice by Mr.Naidu that pursuant to
the earlier order of this Court (Khanwilkar, J)

¶8

¶9

the O.L. took several steps and more
particularly those enunciated in C.A. 914 of
2008.

¶10

2.A copy of this company petition is served
on the O.L. The Dy.O.L. is present in court
pursuant to notice. He confirms that the steps
have been taken, but now that the earlier order
is recalled by this Court, in his submission, the
Court may proceed and pass such orders as are
necessary in the interest of justice.

¶11

3.Perused the application and annexures
thereto. In the light of the order passed by me
on 15th June 2008, the Company Application must
succeed. The Dy.O.L. is present in court and
has stated that all communications which have
been addressed by him will be duly withdrawn and
all parties would be intimated that the company
is not wound up. Thus, the O.L. having assured
that he would take all such steps as are

¶12

¶13

permissible in law, to act upon the subsequent
order, the company petition is made absolute in
terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c). The Dy.O.L.
states that whatever communications/ letters/
monies/cheques and/or D.Ds. and other amounts
which have been received by him till date on
behalf of the company, would be duly handed over
to the respondent company. Company application
is disposed of in the above terms.

¶14

(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. Parasram Purohit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. Parasram Purohit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramnaresh Rajbal I Maurya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jitendra H.Savla Vs Lucille v. Ayyar

The Retreat Union of Makewaves Sea Resort Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ramesh B. Walmiki

Wanbury Ltd. (Earlier Known as Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator, H.C.Bombay of Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. (in Liqn)

K. Sera Sera Production Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Film State and Cultural Development Corpn.

Messrs Mineral Sales Private Limited Vs Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited