Disposed

Blue Star Ltd.,Mumbai. v. Ravin Cables Ltd., Mumbai.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2010APP/800/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a Single Judge order was disposed of based on a consensual settlement between the appellant company and the petitioning creditor regarding the payment of dues to discharge the winding up petition with a reviving condition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and Company Petition dismissed on terms; failure to pay will revive the winding up order.

Blue Star Ltd.,Mumbai. Vs Ravin Cables Ltd., Mumbai. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2010)

１

srk

app-800-10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.800 OF 2010

¶5

¶6

COMPANY PETITION NO.921 OF 2009

¶7

Blue Star Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Ravin Cables Ltd. ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.J.P. Sen with Mr. Gaurang Mehta for the appellant. Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate i/by M/s. Shruti Desai & Co. for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. &

¶10

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Friday, September 17, 2010

¶11

P .C.

¶12

The appeal is admitted.

¶13

The learned counsel for the respondent-petitioning creditor waives service of notice of admission of the appeal.

¶14

Since the order proposed to be passed is with the consent of the parties, it is not necessary to set out the facts of the case. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed that, in the event of the company paying the petitioning creditor (respondent herein) a sum of Rs.3.20 crores before the stipulated date, the company petition shall stand dismissed and in the event of the amount being paid, the petitioning creditor shall be at liberty to pursue remedies for further relief including further interest. The learned Single Judge also directed that in case of failure on the part of the company (appellant herein) to pay the amount as aforesaid, the winding up petition shall stand admitted and be advertised in the newspaper and the gazette.

２

srk

app-800-10

The time limit stipulated in the above order of the learned Company Judge was extended by this court earlier.

¶19

Within the stipulated time, the appellant company paid the petitioning creditor a sum of Rs.2,78,89,680/- and today the learned counsel for parties have agreed that the appellant company will pay a further sum of Rs. 58,13,018.86 ps. rounded off to Rs.58,13,000/- to the petitioning creditor within four weeks from today.

¶20

The learned counsel for the parties agree that the aforesaid arrangement will be in full and final settlement of all the claims of the petitioning creditor against the appellant-company.

¶21

In case the appellant-company fails to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.58,13,000/- to the petitioning creditor within the above time limit, the order of the learned Single Judge will revive.

¶22

In view of the above agreement between the parties, the impugned order dated 18th June, 2010 of the learned Company Judge is set aside and the Company Petition No.921 of 2009 shall stand dismissed upon payment of the amount as aforesaid. In case the appellant company fails to pay the amount as aforesaid, the order passed by the learned Company Judge on 18th June, 2010 shall stand revived. Appeal accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶23

In the meantime, the order of the learned Company Judge shall stand stayed for a period of four weeks.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Blue Star Ltd.,Mumbai. v. Ravin Cables Ltd., Mumbai.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Blue Star Ltd.,Mumbai. v. Ravin Cables Ltd., Mumbai.

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

Teresa Rajan Nair, Mumbai. Vs 1. Vincent Fernandes, Thana.

Papeyon Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dallas Traders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Jugraj Rajmal Rathod Vs Madhavnagar Co-Op.Hsg Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Blue Star Ltd.,Mumbai. Vs Ravin Cables Ltd., Mumbai.

M/S. Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.