Dismissed

Shantilal Gangar Partner of M/S. Shilpa Textiles v. M/S. Modern Mills Ltd.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2008CP/322/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a winding-up petition on the ground that a prior petition on the same cause of action was dismissed without appeal. The Court held the present petition was grossly delayed, filed approximately ten years after the BIFR ceased proceedings, rendering it ineligible for consideration.

What did the court decide?

The petition for winding up was dismissed in view of gross delay and the existence of a prior dismissed petition on the same cause of action.

Shantilal Gangar Partner of M/S. Shilpa Textiles Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 COMPANY PETITION NO.322 OF 2008

¶5

 In the matter of M/s.Modern Mill Ltd.
 Shantilal K. Gangar of M/s.Shilpa Textiles : Petitioner

¶6

 Mr.K.M.Kedia i/b. A.H. Punwani for the petitioner.

¶7

 Ms Soumya Srikrishna i/b. M/s.Kanga & Co., for the

¶8

 respondent.

¶9

CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J.

¶10

 DATE : JULY 25, 2008.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 1. This is a petition for winding up. The petitioner’s

¶13

 claim is based on a credit note dated 31.1.1987 issued by
 the respondent in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of
 the petitioner.

¶14

 2. The learned counsel for the respondent raises a
 preliminary objection regarding the tenability of the
 petition on the ground that an earlier petition in regard
 to the same relief was dismissed by this Court and
 thereafter no appeal was filed by the petitioner.
 Admittedly, on the basis of the same credit note, the
 petitioner filed an earlier Company Petition, being

¶15

 -: 2 :-

¶16

 Company Petition no.252 of 1988. That petition was
 dismissed by this Court by an order dated 26.4.2007
 holding that a reference was registered with the B.I.F.R.
 on 21.9.1987 i.e. before filing of the petition and,
 therefore, the petition cannot be entertained. On the
 date when the petition was dismissed, the company had
 ceased to be under the B.I.F.R. Admittedly, no appeal has
 been filed against this order.

¶17

 3. The respondent-company ceased to be under the B.I.F.R.
 on 14.10.1998. Even though proceedings could have been
 taken immediately thereafter, the petitioner took no steps
 whatsoever and filed this petition on 10.3.2008 i.e.
 after a period of about ten years, instead of preferring
 against the order dismissing the earlier petition. Thus,
 in view of the above, the present petition is on the same
 cause of action as the earlier petition and is grossly
 delayed. It appears that the petitioner, instead of
 preferring an appeal had filed an application for
 restoration of the petition which was apparently dismissed
 for non-prosecution on 10.12.2007.

¶18

 4. In this view of the matter, the present petition is
 liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

 -: 3 :-

¶20

 S.A. BOBDE, J.

Shantilal Gangar Partner of M/S. Shilpa Textiles v. M/S. Modern Mills Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantilal Gangar Partner of M/S. Shilpa Textiles v. M/S. Modern Mills 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

Messrs Subham Fabrics Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of High Court, Bombay and 3 Ors. Krishnakumar Karnani

Nsk Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dirk India Pvt.Ltd.

Lavina Estates Private Limited Vs M/S. Sdr Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Kjmc Financial Services Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

M/S. Western India Shipyard Limited Vs M/S. Saurashtra Fuels (P) Limited

Mansanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------