Dismissed

M/S. Allied Digitial Services Ltd., Mumbai v. Pramod Agarwal Mumbai

Bombay HC17 Sept 2009APP/210/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal against a single judge order in a company petition for recovery. The court held the appeal infructuous as the appellant complied with the deposit order and the respondent filed a suit, leading to transfer of the deposited amount to the suit account.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as infructuous; deposit to be transferred to suit account.

M/S. Allied Digitial Services Ltd., Mumbai Vs Pramod… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2009

¶5

¶6

COMPANY PETITION NO. 139 OF 2009

¶7

M/s. Allied Digital Services Ltd., .. Appellants.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Pramod Agarwal. .. Respondent.

¶10

Mr. O.P. Soni with Mr. Mahesh Joshi i/by O.P. Soni & Co. for the appellants.

¶11

None for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM : J. N. PATEL &

¶13

SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ

¶14

DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

None for the Respondent. Respondent absent despite

¶17

service of notice.

¶18

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.

¶19

¶20

This appeal is preferred against the order dated

¶21

31.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Company Petition No. 139 of 3008. It is seen from the impugned order that appellant was absent before the Company Court despite the notice having been served upon it.

¶22

Mr. Soni, the learned counsel for the appellant has made a grievance that the service of notice of the company petition was not proper and as a consequence the company was unable to appear before the learned Single Judge. He has submitted that the amount of Rs. 3,01,441.12 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as claimed by the respondent is not correct. According to the appellant, the only amount due was about Rs. 30,000/-

¶23

After noting the claim of the respondent in the company petition, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order directed the appellant company to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,230/in Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order failing which the company petition was directed to stand admitted. Paragraph 4 of the said order further directs that in case of deposit of the amount within the time granted, the company petition to stand dismissed and the respondent to file a suit within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the deposit by the

¶24

¶25

Advocate for the appellant to the respondent. Mr. Soni, the learned counsel for the appellant, states that the appellant company has complied with the order of deposit within the time granted by the learned Company Judge. After the respondent was informed by the learned counsel for the appellant about the deposit of the amount in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Company Judge, the respondent has already filed a suit in this Court being Suit No. 3610 of 2008. Thus, the impugned order is seen to have been substantially complied with. The only part that remains is transfer of the amount deposited by the appellant in the account of the Company Petition to the account of the suit filed. It is therefore directed that the amount deposited by the company should be transferred to the credit of the suit with a further direction to the Prothonotary and Senior Master to invest the said amount in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank initially for a period of three years and thereafter as per orders of this Court from time to time.

¶26

Having regard to the circumstances and developments stated above subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, nothing survives for consideration of this Court in the present appeal. The same is disposed of as infructuous. No order as to costs. It is open for the appellant to agitate all the questions

¶27

¶28

relating to the claim of the respondent company in the suit filed by

¶29

the respondent.

¶30

( J. N. PATEL, J)

¶31

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)

M/S. Allied Digitial Services Ltd., Mumbai v. Pramod Agarwal Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Allied Digitial Services Ltd., Mumbai v. Pramod Agarwal Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malti Madhav Desai Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

M/S Star Apparels Private Ltd. Vs Parampreet Singh Bindra Alias King Bindra and 6 Ors.

Shri Rajan Gangaram Vanmali Vs Central Bank of India and Anr.

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs Vivek C. Shetty and Ors.

Manjulaben I. Shrimankar and Anr. Mumbai Vs Smt. Rekha Kumar Shrimankar , Mumbai

M/S. Haldyn Glass Limited, Mumbai. Vs 1. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. Mumbai and Another.