Allowed

Sicom Ltd. v. Kamal Kumar Saraf and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2008NMIS/4/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Notice of Motion under an Insolvency Petition, the Court allowed the request to condone delay and set aside an ex-parte adjudication order upon creditor consent, but rejected the prayer to set aside an un-served Insolvency Notice.

What did the court decide?

The Notice of Motion was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) (condonation of delay and setting aside ex-parte order), and disposed of.

Sicom Ltd. Vs Kamal Kumar Saraf and Anr. — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 IN INSOLVENCY

¶3

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4 OF 2008
 IN
 PETITION NO. 8 OF 2007

¶4

 Re: Kamal Kumar Saraf
 & Anr. ..Debtors

¶5

Ex-parte :

¶6

 SICOM Limited ..Petitioning Creditors

¶7

 Mr. P. V. Shah for the Petitioning Creditors.

¶8

 Mr. G. B. Kedia for the Debtors (Insolvent).

¶9

CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J.
 DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2008.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

 . Heard.

¶12

 2. The Debtors have taken out the Notice of Motion
 for the following prayers :

¶13

"a) that the delay, if any, in taking out the Notice of Motion be condoned;

¶14

 b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set
 aside and/or rescind the ex-parte Order of
 adjudication dated 26th November 2007 passed
 by this Hon’ble Court in the above
 Insolvency Petition No. 8 of 2007 and allow
 the Debtors to contest the Petition on
 merits;

¶15

:2:

¶16

c) In the alternative to (b) above, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to annul the Order of adjudication dated 26th November 2007 passed in the above Insolvency petition No. 8 of 2007;

¶17

d) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the Insolvency Notice No. N/188 of 2006 dated 8th September 2006 which is not yet served upon Debtors;

¶18

e) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Notice of Motion, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the effect, operation and implementation of the ex-parte Order of adjudication dated 26th November 2007 including the proceedings before the Official Assignee, High Court, Bombay;

¶19

f) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Notice of Motion, the Insolvency Registrar be directed to cease and desist from publishing the Order of adjudication dated 26th November 2007 passed in the above Insolvency Petition No. 8 of 2007;

¶20

g) for ad-interim Orders in terms of prayers (e) and (f) above;

¶21

h) for costs of this Notice of Motion;

¶22

i) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."

¶23

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioning Creditors

¶24

has no objection to the Notice of Motion being made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The learned counsel for the Debtor however presses for the Notice of Motion being allowed in terms of prayer

¶25

 clause (d), which reads as follows:

¶26

"d) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set

¶27

:3:

¶28

 aside the Insolvency Notice No. N/188 of
 2006 dated 8th September 2006 which is not
 yet served upon Debtors";

¶29

 3. The Insolvency Notice is not yet served on the
 Debtors as claimed by them. Therefore, there is no
 reason why such a Insolvency Notice needs to be set

¶30

 aside. Hence, the said prayer is rejected.

¶31

4. Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer

¶32

 clauses (a) and (b).

¶33

5. Notice of Motion is disposed of.

¶34

(S. A. BOBDE, J.)

Sicom Ltd. v. Kamal Kumar Saraf and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sicom Ltd. v. Kamal Kumar Saraf and Anr.

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

M/S. Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Rakesh Varshneya

Dr. Razia Bano Vs Brihanmumbai Mahnagar Palika and Anr.

Abdul Rehman Khan Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagapalika and Anr.

Jyotindra v. Shah Vs Jayant Chunilal Ghelani

Archana Ghansham Mehta Vs Inderjit Sharma and Anr.

Neebha Kapoor. Vs Jayantilal Khandwala and Sons and Ors.