Dismissed

Suryakant Ramdas Patil v. the Official Liquidator and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2013APP/154/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against an order allowing a company in liquidation to be continued by majority shareholders. The court dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the appellants were not parties to the original application and the appeals were filed after a long delay of over four years.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed with liberty to the appellants to move the learned Company Judge.

Suryakant Ramdas Patil Vs the Official Liquidator and… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

app-lodg.76 & 86 of 2013.sxw

¶2

gopi

¶3

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

¶4

APPEAL LODGING NO.76 OF 2013 IN

¶5

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2008 IN

¶6

COMPANY PETITION NO.59 OF 1984

¶7

Suryakant Ramdas Patil, Ex-General Secretary of Rashitrya Girni Kamgar Sangh ......Appellant

¶8

Versus 1.The Official Liquidator appointed in respect of Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (in liquidation) & Ors. ….Respondents

¶9

WITH APPEAL LODGING NO.86 OF 2013 IN

¶10

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2008 IN

¶11

COMPANY PETITION NO.59 OF 1984

¶12

The Assistant Labour Commissioner as Administrator of Rashitrya Girni Kamgar Sangh ......Appellant

¶13

Versus 1.The Official Liquidator appointed in respect of Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (in liquidation) & Ors. ….Respondents

¶14

Ms.Chhaya Shukla for appellant in Appeal Lodging No.76 of 2013 Mr. Ajay Panicker i/b. Ajay Law Association for appellant in Appeal Lodging No.86 of 2013. Mr. Atul Damle for respondent No.2. Ms. Azmin Irani for Official Liquidator, respondent No.1.

¶15

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 05 March 2013

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

app-lodg.76 & 86 of 2013.sxw

¶18

gopi

¶19

P .C.

¶20

These appeals are directed against the order dated 17 July 2008 of the learned Company Judge by which the learned Company Judge disposed of the Company Application No.547 of 2008 after observing that all the creditors of the company are paid off and that the properties of the company were sold, with a further clarification that if any claim remains with the Liquidator and if any other property with the company remains in existence, it would be in the charge of the Liquidator and would be used in payment of claims, if any, made in future. It was also recorded that no other claim had been made since the winding up order passed in 1984. The learned Company Judge accordingly allowed the majority shareholders of the company to continue the business of the company in the name of the company subject to their undertaking to pay off any claim, if any, made and which cannot be satisfied from the amount lying with the Official Liquidator.

¶21

This very order was challenged in Appeal No.455 of 2008. By order dated December 2, 2008 another Division Bench of this Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to move the learned Company Judge, in accordance with law.

¶22

In the present appeals also we are inclined to pass the same order, as the appellants herein was not a party to Company Application No.547 of 2008 and also because the applications are filed after long delay of more than four years.

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

gopi

¶25

app-lodg.76 & 86 of 2013.sxw

¶26

The appeals are accordingly disposed of with liberty to the appellants to move the learned Company Judge.

¶27

This order is passed without going into the question of condoning the delay in filing the appeals. Since we are disposing of the appeals without going into the question of limitation, we may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeals.

¶28

All parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.

¶29

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

ANOOP V. MOHTA , J .

¶31

3 of 3

Suryakant Ramdas Patil v. the Official Liquidator and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryakant Ramdas Patil v. the Official Liquidator and Ors.

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

Mrityunjay Ashram and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Shramik Muti Krutadnyata Sanstha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Society for Backlog Removal and Development, Amravati and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Suryakant Ramdas Patil Vs the Official Liquidator and Ors.

Edwin Britto Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Dr. Bharat Shah Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.