Disposed

Jayesh Industries Ltd. v. Arc-Tec Systems Ltd.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2012CP/305/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a report by the Official Liquidator in winding up proceedings. It held that since the Applicant was neither a petitioner nor a creditor, the Liquidator must pay the advertising charges from the company's fund, with liberty to recover later.

What did the court decide?

Official Liquidator directed to pay advertising charges of Rs.41,980/- from common fund with liberty to recover from sale proceeds.

Jayesh Industries Ltd. Vs Arc-Tec Systems Ltd. — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

COMPANY PETITION No. 305 OF 2010 IN

¶3

COMPANY PETITION NO. 295 OF 2011

¶4

In the matter of M/s. Arc-Tec Systems Ltd (in Liqn.)

¶5

Dinesh N. Shah, Proprietor of Jayesh Industries Ltd.

¶6

..Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Nahar S Mahala i/b R. Shekhawat for the Applicant – Sanath Bhattacharya – Ex-Director. Ms. Rupa Sutar, AOL.

¶8

Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : June 20, 2013 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant. By this report, the Official Liquidator has made following prayers :

¶11

“a) Whether in view of para 6 above, the action of the Official Liquidator of publishing the invitation of claim notice without waiting for depositing the requisite charges by the Applicant Shri. Sanath Bhattacharya as per Hon'ble High Court order dated 30.1.2013 may be ratified;

¶12

1 / 3

¶13

patilsr

¶14

b) Whether in view of para 7 above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Applicant Shri. Sanath Bhattacharya to deposit Rs.41,980/- towards advertising charges for invitation of claims of workers/creditors;”

¶15

The Respondent-Company is wound up by the order dated 16^th August 2012 passed in above Company Petition and the Official Liquidator is appointed as Liquidator of the Company. Mr. Sanath Bhattacharya, Ex-Director of the Respondent-Company thereafter filed Company Application No. 15 of 2013 for setting aside winding up order and revival of the Respondent-Company. In this application, Mr. Sanath Bhattacharya was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25 lacs to show his bonafides. However, Mr. Sanath has not deposited the said amount and ultimately the said application came to be dismissed. The Official Liquidator in the meanwhile invited the claims by issuing advertisements in the newspapers on 4^th February 2013. By this report, the Official Liquidator seeks ratification of the publication of advertisement inviting claims of the creditors with further direction to Mr. Sanath to deposit Rs.41,980/- towards advertising charges for invitation of claims of workers/creditors.

¶16

2 / 3

¶17

patilsr

¶18

Mr. Sanath Bhattacharya is neither the Petitioner

¶19

nor the creditor of the Respondent-Company. In these circumstances, the Official Liquidator shall pay the advertisement charges of Rs.41,980/- from the common fund with liberty to recover the same from the sale proceeds of the property of the Respondent-Company. Report stands disposed of.

¶20

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶21

3 / 3

¶22

patilsr

Jayesh Industries Ltd. v. Arc-Tec Systems Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayesh Industries Ltd. v. Arc-Tec Systems Ltd.

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

Sunil Atur Hingorani Vs Vipul Suresh Mehta

Mandvi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Narendra M. Chandra and Ors.

Mandvi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Mayur Narendra Chandra and Ors.

Corsa Holdings Private Limited Vs Goshar Ventures Private Limited

International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. as a Trustee of IARC-BOB-01/07 Trust Vs the Official Liquidator for Otoklin Plants and Equipments Ltd.

1. Mrs. Swati Verma and Three Others Vs Quadrile Management Services Pvt. Ltd.