Allowed

Tata Motors Limited v. Autoriders (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2009CA/199/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court granted permission to Tata Motors to withdraw a winding-up petition against Autoriders (India) Pvt. Ltd. and discharged the appointed provisional liquidator. The application was approved subject to the payment of all costs, charges, and expenses of the Official Liquidator within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Company Petition for withdrawal is granted, and the Official Liquidator is discharged, subject to payment of dues.

Tata Motors Limited Vs Autoriders (India) Pvt. Ltd… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 199 OF 2009 IN

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 483 OF 2003

¶5

Tata Motors Limited ..Applicants versus Autoriders (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents

¶6

Mr. Avinash Joshi with Mr. Vipul Belve i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for Applicants.

¶7

Ms. S. Shaikh i/b. S. K. Srivastav & Co. for Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Vishal Khanawalkar i/b. Mr. Kedar Dighe for Official Liquidator.

¶9

CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD , J. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2009.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The Company Application has been taken out for permission to the

¶12

Applicants to withdraw the Company Petition and for discharge of the Official Liquidator who has been appointed as a Provisional Liquidator of the Respondent Company.

¶13

The Company Petition was admitted on 11^th March 2005 by the Order

¶14

of the Company Court. The Official Liquidator came to be appointed as a

¶15

¶16

Provisional Liquidator.

¶17

The Company Application was placed before this Court in terms of the roster of work since the learned Company Judge was unable to hear the matter.

¶18

On 4^th May 2009 this Court issued a direction to the effect that the proposed withdrawal of the Company Petition should be advertised in two English newspapers. The Official Liquidator was directed to inform the Court as to whether any objections have been received.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants stated that the proposed withdrawal was published in the newspapers “Free Press Journal”, “Maharashtra Times” and in the “Afternoon - Despatch & Courier” on 26^th May 2009. An Affidavit dated 9^th June 2009 has been filed. The Advocate appearing on behalf of the Official Liquidator states that no objection or claim has been received.

¶20

In these circumstances since the proposed withdrawal of the Company Petition has been advertised and no objection or claim has been received, there is no reason why the relief that has been sought for withdrawal of the Company Petition for winding up and for the discharge of the Official

¶21

¶22

Liquidator should not be granted. The Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) subject to the payment of all the costs, charges and expenses of the Official Liquidator. The dues of the Official Liquidator shall in any event be paid within a period of two weeks from today.

¶23

(DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)

Tata Motors Limited v. Autoriders (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Motors Limited v. Autoriders (India) Pvt. Ltd. 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

Design Shop (India) Ltd. Vs Gratex Industries Ltd.

Manohar Ramchandra Wagle Vs Jay Harsh Holding and Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs M/S Century Exports and Anr.

Jeena and Co. Vs Crystal Agritech Ltd.

Jeena and Co. Vs Trans India Floritech Ltd.

Jeena and Co. Vs Tropica Agro Base Intl Ltd.