Disposed

Ashok Vashdev Bajaj v. Official Liquidator of M/S Fizz Chemicals Private Ltd.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2013CA/174/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought leave to file a suit against a wound-up company and for ad-judication of a debt. The court held that leave under Section 446 is not needed as the applicant could file a claim before the Official Liquidator, who must adjudicate it irrespective of the prior decree.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected but applicant allowed to prove claim before the Official Liquidator; liquidator directed to adjudicate irrespective of delay and ex-parte decree.

Ashok Vashdev Bajaj Vs Official Liquidator of M/S Fizz… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

COMPANY APPLICATION No. 174 OF 2013 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 2 OF 1996

¶3

Ashok V. Bajaj. ..Applicant. In the matter of Meghraj Kantilal & Co., ..Petitioner. Versus M/s. Fizz Chemicals Pvt. Ltd [in Liquidation]. ..Respondent.

¶4

Mr. J. S. Chandnani for the Applicant. Ms. Rupa Sutar, AOL.

¶5

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

¶6

P. C. : 1. By this application, the Applicant has made following

¶7

prayers :

¶8

“(a) That delay of four years if any in filing the present company application may be condoned;

¶9

(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant leave under section 446 of the Companies Act.

¶10

(c) That the letter dated 23/6/2008 sent by the Dy. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay rejecting the claim of the Applicant on account of not obtaining leave of this Hon'ble Court may be quashed and set aside;

¶11

(d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Official Liquidator High Court Bombay to adjudicate the debt payable by the Respondent-Company to the Applicant and to pay the same”

¶12

The Applicant seems to have filed summary suit, being Summary Suit No.4812 of 1996, in this Court against the Respondent-Company for recovery of Rs.3,29,100/- together with

¶13

1 / 2

¶14

patilsr

¶15

interest. The said suit was decreed ex-parte by this Court on 29^th October 1999. However, in the meanwhile the RespondentCompany was wound up on 7^th December 1998. In these circumstances, the Applicant's prayer to grant leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be acceded to. The Applicant, however, by filing additional affidavit has stated that his claim against the Respondent-Company can be adjudicated by the Official Liquidator as an unsecured creditor independently. He states that the Applicant will not rely upon the ex-parte decree in his favour. The Applicant has already filed independent affidavit of claim with the Official Liquidator for adjudication of his claim.

¶16

In above circumstances, the Application is disposed of by passing following order :

¶17

(a) The prayers made in the application are rejected.

¶18

(b) the Applicant is, however, allowed to prove his claim before the Official Liquidator.

¶19

(c) the Official Liquidator shall adjudicate the Applicant's claim against the Respondent-Company irrespective of ex-parte decree in the Applicant's favour mentioned above and shall pass appropriate orders.

¶20

(d) the Official Liquidator shall not refuse to adjudicate the Applicant's claim on the ground of delay.

¶21

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶22

2 / 2

¶23

patilsr

Ashok Vashdev Bajaj v. Official Liquidator of M/S Fizz Chemicals Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Vashdev Bajaj v. Official Liquidator of M/S Fizz Chemicals Private 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

Virendra Thimappa Bhandary (M/S. Varuna Bar and Rest.) Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police (H.Q.1) Mumbai and Anr.

Sarva Shramik Sangh Vs M/S. Neosym Industries Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Devkishan Bhuralal Dave and Anr. Vs Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Mrs.Tatikonda Bharati Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S.Alpic Finance Ltd.(in Liqn.)

M/S. Prankster Inn Pvt.Ltd Vs Anytime India Fitness Private Limited - U92410MH2009PTC191245

Pukhraj Misrimal Jain, Proprietor of Misrimal Pukhraj Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay of Matushree Textiles Ltd.(in Liqn.).