Allowed

Katare Spining Mills Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2012APP/257/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted leave to file a Notice of Motion and added the Official Liquidator as a respondent to the ongoing appeal in a company liquidation matter on the condition that pending communications based on a prior order be withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Order for adding Official Liquidator as respondent to appeal and withdrawal of specific letters/communications.

Katare Spining Mills Ltd. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

gopi

¶2

¶3

draft nm in app.257-12

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2012 IN APPEAL NO.257 OF 2012 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.47 OF 2011

¶7

Katare Spinning Mills Limited. ..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

¶10

....Respondents.

¶11

And

¶12

Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay ..Respondent

¶13

Mr. Amit Vyas with Ankita Ajwani i/b. Rajani Associates for appellants. Ms. Azmin Irani for the Official Liquidator. Mr. Tushar Garodia, for the Respondent.

¶14

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶15

DATED : 7 May 2012.

¶16

P.C.

¶17

Leave under Rules 147 and 148 of the High Court, Original Side Rules, 1980 granted to the appellant to take out Notice of Motion in terms of draft Notice of Motion handed in. Notice of Motion is made returnable forthwith

¶18

1 To 2

¶19

gopi 2

¶20

draft nm in app.257-12

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator we allow the Notice of Motion in terms of prayer (a). The Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay, shall be added as party respondent to the Appeal.

¶22

The learned counsel for the Official Liquidator states that since the Official Liquidator was not joined as party in Appeal Lodging No.85 of 2012 and the copy of the order was not communicated to the Official Liquidator the impugned letters dated April 25, 2012 at Exhibits B-1 and B-2 are issued to the concerned parties. However, now that the said order dated February 8, 2012 is brought to the notice of the Official Liquidator, the said communications dated April 25, 2012 shall be withdrawn and if any other letters are written on the basis of the order dated 1 February 2012 of the learned single Judge in Company Petition No.47 of 2011, such communications shall also be withdrawn.

¶23

We also record the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant that a total sum of Rs.3.25 crores is already deposited with the D.R.A.T., as required by the direction in paragraph 20 of the order dated 8 February 2012.

¶24

Notice of Motion stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶27

2 To 2

Katare Spining Mills Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katare Spining Mills Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

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

Geeta Chauhan Vs Mrs. Parveen Iqbal Sheikh and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Ramdas Pote Vs Jyoti @ Manisha Dnyaneshwar Pote and Ors.

Javed Ahmed Mohammed Tauhid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

manubhai p. vashi Vs state of maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Shail Rane and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Shree Siyaram Fab Pvt. Ltd. Vs Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd. and Ors.