Allowed

M/S. Unimers India Ltd. v. Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC3 Feb 2012APP/101/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of an application seeking extension of time to pay a debt under a consent order in a winding-up petition. The High Court allowed the appeal, granting the extension with a condition to pay monthly instalments.

What did the court decide?

Grant of extension of time till 30 September 2012 to pay Rs. 10,00,000 per month from February 2012 under consent order.

M/S. Unimers India Ltd. Vs Vinergy International Pvt… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2012)

gopi

app-lodg-57-12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL LODGING NO.57 OF 2012 IN COMPANY APLPLICATION NO.618 OF 2011 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.750 OF 2009

¶7

M/s.Unimers India Limited

¶8

..Appellant

¶9

V/s.

¶10

Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr. L.A. Rubens, Michael Behl and Sujit Suryawanshi i/b. Vigil Juris for the appellant. Mr. Phiroze Colabawalla with Mr. Sachin Kudalkar ii/b. Kudalkar & Co., for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 03 February 2012.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

The appeal is directed against the order dated 12 January 2012 of the learned Company Judge dismissing the appellant's application for extension of time till 30 September 2012 to enable the appellant company to comply with the order dated 11 February 2010 and subsequent order dated 31 March 2011 passed in Company Petition No.750 of 2009.

¶15

The respondents herein filed winding up petition being Company Petition No.750 of 2009 on the ground that the appellant

app-lodg-57-12

gopi

company was unable to pay its debts. When the company petition was placed before the concerned company Court on 11 February 2010 consent terms were placed on record and consent order was passed under which the appellant company agreed and undertook to pay an amount of Rs.1,84,89,589.96 paise along with interest at 12% per annum from 1 October 2006 on reducing balance. The amount was to be paid on or before 31 March 2011.

¶20

Since the appellant company could not comply with the order within the time limit, an extension was sought by filing company application. An order was passed on 31 March 2011 extending the time limit till 31 December 2011.

¶21

The appellant company thereafter filed Company Application No.618 of 2011 praying for further extension till 30 September 2012. That application has been rejected by the learned Company Judge and, therefore, this Appeal.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant company submits that since the appellant company has already paid the respondents herein (petitioning creditor) a substantial amount of Rs.95,00,000/- before filing the recent extension application and thereafter paid a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- during pendency of the extension application, the learned Company Judge ought to have appreciated that substantial amount has already been paid by the appellant company and, therefore, extension as prayed for ought to have been granted.

¶23

The learned counsel further submits that the appellant company agrees and undertakes to pay monthly instalments of

app-lodg-57-12

gopi

Rs.10,00,000/- till the entire amount is paid over as per the original order dated 11 February 2010.

¶28

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent (petitioning creditor) has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the impugned order being a discretionary order of the learned Company Judge this Court should not interfere with the said order.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and particularly having regard to the fact that the appellant company has already paid the sum of Rs.1,05,00,000/-, in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just and proper to grant extension prayed for i.e. extension till 30 September 2012 on a condition that the appellant company makes payment of Rs.10,00,000/- per month, that is to say, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the month of February 2012 shall be paid on or before 25 February 2012 and so on and so forth.

¶30

Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 12 January 2012 and allow the Company Application No.618 of 2011 by granting the appellant company extension upto 30 September 2012 to make payment as per consent order dated 11 February 2010. We make it clear that for the sake of convenience of calculation of interest, the amount of Rs.1,84,89,589.96 paise is rounded off to Rs.1,85,00,000/simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be calculated from 1 October 2006 on the principal amount on reducing balance, after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,05,00,000/- already paid by the appellant company to the respondent (petitioning creditor) on or before 30 September 2012 and with a further modification that the appellant company shall pay minimum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- per month with

gopi

app-lodg-57-12

effect from 1 February 2012.

¶35

The other undertakings given in the order dated 11 February 2010 shall continue to operate.

¶36

In case of two defaults in making payment of the amounts as aforesaid on or before 30 September 2012, the Company Petition shall stand admitted.

¶37

The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶39

(RANJIT V. MORE, J.)

M/S. Unimers India Ltd. v. Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Unimers India Ltd. v. Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Enterprises Vs M/S. Rajesh Estates and Nirman Ltd.

M/S. Gupta Synthetics Limited Vs SBI Global Factors Ltd.(Formerly Known as M/S/ Global Trade Finance Ltd)

Tekchand Gopaldas Khanchandani Vs State Election Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors. Sandip Deshpande - Applicant

Bengal Mill Stores Private Ltd. Vs Jayesh C. Doshi and 4 Ors.

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors. and Lokmat Media Ltd., - Applicant