Allowed

Premier Supplies and Services Limited v. Official Liquidator of Premier Supplies and Services

Bombay HC4 Sept 2013CA/352/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondent company applied to recall orders admitting a petition and disposing of it without hearing it. The High Court, noting the company was a going concern and prepared to settle, allowed the application, recalled the orders, and restored the petition to the stage of pending admission.

What did the court decide?

Recalled orders dated 20th December, 2013 and 16th August, 2012; restored company petition No. 234 of 2012 to stage of pending admission.

Premier Supplies and Services Limited Vs Official… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

spb/

¶2

24ca352-13.sxw

¶3

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

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 352 OF 2013 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 234 OF 2012

¶5

Premier Supplies and Services Ltd., ... Applicant.

¶6

In the matter between :

¶7

Modern Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd., … Petitioner.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Official Liquidator of Premier Supplies and Services Ltd.,

¶10

... Respondent.

¶11

Mr. Dushyam Purekar for the Applicant.

¶12

Mr. Mahesh Londhe with Avinash Choudhary i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms. Yogini Chavan, Assistant Official Liquidator is present.

¶13

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 04^th SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

1 By this application, the applicant seeks to recall the order dated 20^th December, 2013, allowing the company petition no. 234 of 2012.

¶16

2 The company petition was filed by the original petitioner

¶17

in respect of its claim to the tune of Rs. 8,38,440=74. The petition was placed for admission on 16^th August, 2012 and at that time none

1/4

Borey

spb/ 24ca352-13.sxw

had appeared on behalf of the respondent company. Considering the Email dated 10^th August, 2011, the petition was admitted. Thereafter, the petition was placed for final hearing on 20^th December, 2013. At that time also none had appeared on behalf of the respondent company. Considering the order passed at the time of admission and perusal of the petition and correspondence, the company petition was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a),(i), (ii) and (b).

¶22

3 The company application is taken out by the respondent company, stating that both the orders i.e. the order of admission and final hearing were passed without hearing the applicant-company. It is stated in the application that when the petition was served on the applicant company, there were no employees/ officers of higher cadre to understand the gravity of the situation and therefore, applicant company could not represent itself. It is stated that the applicant had one director, who was also not available in Mumbai for giving instruction and other directors were stationed in Kolkata. It is stated in the application that in the last week of February, 2013, the other directors of the applicant company at Kolkata found out about the petition and upon taking search on the website, came to know about the orders. The learned counsel for the applicant company reiterated the contentions raised in the application and on

2/4

Borey

spb/

24ca352-13.sxw

instructions submitted that the company is a going concern and is in the business of export and trading in engineering goods. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant company is prepared to settle the claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 2^nd September, 2013, wherein it is stated that pursuant to the advertisement of the petition, no claims have been received against the respondent company. The official liquidator states that the notification regarding appointment of the official liquidator was received only few days back and no steps have been taken pursuant to the same.

¶28

4 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the official liquidator. Admittedly both the orders i.e. the order of admission as well as final hearing were passed in the absence of the applicant company. The applicant company has stated the reasons why the matter went unattended on both the occasions. It is stated that the most of the directors are based in Kolkatta. It is stated that the respondent company is a going concern and is prepared to settle dues of the petitioner. The order of admission as well as final disposal of the petition would mean that the applicant company has put to an end. Considering the fact that both these orders were passed without hearing the applicant, an opportunity needs to be given to

3/4

Borey

spb/ 24ca352-13.sxw

the applicant company to make its submissions regarding the admission and final disposal of the petition.

¶33

5 Accordingly, the company application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and the orders passed on 20^th December, 2013 and 16^th August, 2012 are hereby recalled. The company petition no. 234 of 2012 is restored to the stage of “pending admission”.

¶34

6 The company application is accordingly disposed of in the

¶35

above terms.

¶36

7 Official liquidator stands discharged.

¶37

4/4

¶38

Borey

Premier Supplies and Services Limited v. Official Liquidator of Premier Supplies and Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premier Supplies and Services Limited v. Official Liquidator of Premier Supplies and Services

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

Uma Shankar Mishra Vs Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay for M/S. Shriniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Unimers India Limited

Srm Energy Limited Vs

Modern Cargo Services Private Ltd, Vs Premier Supplies and Services Private Limited - U74140MH2004PTC149211

Mohit Khullar and 3 Ors. Vs Svc Resources Ltd. and 7RS.

M/S. Desarch Pentacles Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Gemini Equipn Pvt. Ltd.