Dismissed

Bgm Industrial Services v. the Official Liquidator, High Court Bombay

Bombay HC6 Feb 2008RPC/1/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the petitioner challenged an order relegating their claim to the Official Liquidator. The Bench rejected the review petition, holding that the applicant remained under obligation to produce original primary evidence to establish title to the disputed property.

What did the court decide?

The review petition filed by the petitioner is rejected.

Bgm Industrial Services Vs the Official Liquidator… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

REVIEW PETITION (Company) No. 1 OF 2008
IN
COMPANY APPLICATION No. 1298 OF 2007
IN
COMPANY APPLICATION No. 302 OF 2007
IN

¶5

COMPANY PETITION No. 412 OF 1996

¶6

BGM Industrial Services.. Petitioner
(Revision)
Papco Investments Corpn.Petitioner
(Original)
Vs.
Official Liquidator... Respondent

¶7

Mr. H. M. G. Murthy in person for the
petitioner.

¶8

Mr. S. Ramakanta, Dy. Official Liquidator
for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 6, 2008.

¶10

PC

¶11

.Heard the applicant who appears in person.
According to the applicant, I have failed to
examine the efficacy of the order passed on 23rd
August 2007 in Company Application No. 302 of
2007 whereby the Company Judge relegated the
applicant before the Official Liquidator, who in
turn was expected to adjudicate the claim of the

¶12

- 2 -

¶13

applicant.

¶14

2.To my mind, the direction so passed in
order dated 23rd August 2007 in no way extricates
the applicant of his obligation to produce the
original documents to support his claim, as is
required by order dated 16th November 2006 passed
in Company Applicaton No. 635 of 1999. In other
words, the applicant would be able to establish
his claim only if the primary evidence (original
documents) were to be produced to establish his
title in respect of the disputed property. As no
good ground for excusing the production of primary
evidence, has been made out, the question of
entertaining other evidence (secondary evidence)
in the first instance does not arise.

¶15

3.Accordingly, I find no reason to review my
order dated 15th January 2008. Hence, the Review
Petition is rejected.

Bgm Industrial Services v. the Official Liquidator, High Court Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bgm Industrial Services v. the Official Liquidator, High Court Bombay

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

Sicom Ltd. Vs Rajesh J. Sarvaiya and Anr.

Mala Chuckerbutty Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Imp Powers Ltd. and Anr.

Bhavana Ashit Desai Vs --

Ashit Kantilal Desai Vs -

Shri Dhiraj M. Chandekar Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Bombay Metropolitan Transport Corpn. Ltd.