Dismissed

Mcs Ltd., v. Punjab National Bank.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2012APP/404/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against the admission of a winding-up petition. The Court dismissed it without considering merits because the petition was already advertised, rendering the appeal futile. The appeal does not affect the final hearing date.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the admission of the winding-up petition was dismissed without going into the merits of the controversy.

Mcs Ltd., Vs Punjab National Bank. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2012)

gopi

app-lodg-436-12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL LODGING NO.436 OF 2012 IN

¶7

COMPANY PETITION NO.219 OF 2011

MCS Ltd.

..Appellant

Versus

Punjab National Bank

....Respondent

Mr. S.R. Mishra with Ms. Meena Kshirsagar for the appellant. Mr. Shakib Dhorajiwala i/b. Vidhi Partner for respondent No.1.

¶14

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

¶15

DATE : 11 July 2012.

¶16

P.C.

¶17

This appeal is directed against the order dated March 2, 2012 of the learned Company Judge of this Court admitting the winding up petition filed by the respondent herein against the appellant company.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant company sought to raise various contentions on the merits of the dispute between the parties. We are, however, not inclined to consider those contentions for the simple reason that after the impugned order was passed on 2 March 2012 admitting the winding up petition and giving directions for publication of advertisement, the winding up petition was advertised in two local newspapers on 31 May 2012 and it was published in the Government Gazette on 8 May 2012. The Company Petition is now

1/2

gopi

app-lodg-436-12

listed for final hearing before the learned Company Judge.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had filed an affidavit in reply to the winding up petition, but now that the petition has been admitted, the appellant would like to file a detailed affidavit in reply, but the Company Petition is ordered to be listed for final hearing on 13 July 2012. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant would be in a position to file detailed affidavit in reply to the winding up petition within three weeks from today.

¶25

In view of the above, we have no manner of doubt that the learned Company Judge will consider the appellant's request and fix the date of final hearing of the winding up petition accordingly.

¶26

Subject to the above observations we dismiss the appeal, without going into the merits of the controversy between the parties and only on the ground that since the winding up petition has already been advertised, no useful purpose would be served by hearing the appeal against the admission of the petition on merits, when the learned Company Judge will be hearing the winding up petition finally after the appellant files the detailed affidavit in reply within three weeks from today, to which the respondent herein (petitioning creditor) would also be at liberty to file rejoinder.

¶27

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶29

2/2

Mcs Ltd., v. Punjab National Bank.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mcs Ltd., v. Punjab National Bank.

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

M/S.Tirupati Balaji Enterprises Vs Anthony P.Lewis and 8 Ors.

Sachin Arts (India) Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Kirti Velji Satra Prop.of M/S.Paper Bright

Sachin Arts (India) Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Velji Bhuralal Satra Prop.M/S. Paper Bright

Sujata Gopal Sugand and Kanhaiyalal Gopal Sugand Vs Shanti and Daya D/O.Shewaram Basamal Sugand

Mcs Ltd., Vs Punjab National Bank.

Mr. Dattatraya Ganpat Gaikwad and Ors. Vs Sunita Devi Singhaniya Hospital and Medical Research Centre