Allowed

M/S. Jayantilal and Brothers v. M/S. Rana Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2008CP/455/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court admitted a winding-up petition filed by a proprietor against a company for unpaid goods. The court observed the respondent denied contract privity but admitted delivery, finding the defense untenable without evidence. Three newspapers and the Gazette were ordered for notice.

What did the court decide?

Petition admitted; notice to be published in two newspapers and the Gazette; deposit of Rs. 10,000 required.

M/S. Jayantilal and Brothers Vs M/S. Rana Sons Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

:1:

¶2

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

¶3

 COMPANY PETITION NO. 455 OF 2008

¶4

 Chandrakant Parikh, Proprietor
 of M/s. Jayantilal & Brothers ..Petitioner

¶5

 versus

¶6

 M/s. Rana Sons Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent

¶7

 Mr. Yogesh P. Gandhi for Petitioner.

¶8

 Mr. Swapnil Bangur i/b. Mr. G. S. Manasawala
 for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J.
DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

 . Heard.

¶12

 2. This is a petition for winding up of the
 respondent company for unpaid price of goods
 delivered and supplied. The petitioner has claimed
 a sum of Rs.23,193/- for goods sold and delivered on
 8.2.2003 under Bill No. 2654 dated 11.2.2003.

¶13

 3. The respondent company does not dispute
 delivery of the goods. Its defence is that they

¶14

:2:

¶15

 have no privity of contract with the petitioner.
 The goods were supplied by the petitioner at the
 instance of M/s. Engineered Polymer (India) Ltd.
 who had earlier supplied defective goods to the
 company and in order to cure the bad supply, they
 had asked the petitioner to supply the goods. Thus
 according to the respondent company the goods
 received by them from the petitioner are actually
 received from M/s. Engineered Polymer (India) Pvt.
 Ltd. and therefore there is no liability towards
 the petitioner. This argument would have been
 worthy of consideration except for the fact there is
 no evidence that M/s. Engineered Polymer (India)
 Pvt. Ltd. had supplied defective goods to the
 respondent company and that in order to supply the
 goods of a good quality, they instructed the
 petitioner to supply goods on their behalf.

¶16

 4. The Company accepts and admits the delivery
 of goods. It denies everything else, the order, the
 contract etc. This is obviously not acceptable. In
 the circumstances Petition stands admitted. The
 petitioner shall advertise the petition in two local
 newspapers, viz., "Free Press Journal", "Maharashtra
 Times" and in the Maharashtra Government Gazette.
 The petitioner shall deposit an amount of

¶17

:3:

¶18

 Rs.10,000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master
 towards the publication charges within four weeks
 from today with an intimation to the Company
 Registrar, failing which the petition shall stand
 dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶19

(S. A. BOBDE, J.)

M/S. Jayantilal and Brothers v. M/S. Rana Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Jayantilal and Brothers v. M/S. Rana Sons 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

Anil Madanlal Aligh Vs Amar Gain Co-Op.Premises Society Ltd.

Ishwarsingh Gangasingh Chowhan and Ors. Vs Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan and Ors.

Pandurang Ganpat Kondare (Gurav) and Anr. Vs Radhakisan Kashinath Kondare (Gurav)

R.B. Investments and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Serene Investments and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Star Chemicals (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------