Allowed

Gaurav Trehan v. the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay of Catrack Entertainment Ltd.

Bombay HC14 Oct 2013CA/404/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application seeking permanent stay of winding up order after the applicant paid off petitioner's dues. The court accepted counsel's undertaking to continue business and employment.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; permanent stay of winding up order granted; applicant directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,000 to liquidator.

Gaurav Trehan Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

ca-404.13.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

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

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.404 OF 2013 IN

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO.189 OF 2006

¶6

Gaurav Trehan .. Applicant In the matter between Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited .. Petitioner Vs. The Official Liquidator of M/s.Catrack Entertainment Limited .. Respondent

¶7

Mr. Sahil Mohajan for the applicant.

¶8

Ms. Deepti Panda a/w Mr. Kunal Parekh i/by M/s. Tahkore Jariwala & Associates for the original petitioner. Ms. Yogini Chauhan, Assistant Official Liquidator present.

¶9

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 14 October 2013

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Leave to amend as per the draft amendment dated 14 October 2013. Amendment to be carried out within 10 days from today.

¶12

By this application, the applicant-original respondent prays for permanent stay of the order dated 11 July 2013 for winding up of the applicant-company.

¶13

The applicant-company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. During the course of business, the applicant had booked certain advertisements on the petitioner’s channels as per various release orders. The petitioner raised various bills which the company did not pay

¶14

ppn 2

¶15

ca-404.13.doc

¶16

and thereafter the original petitioner served the applicant-company with a notice under Section 434 of the Act. The company petition was admitted on 15 February 2007. Thereafter, the company petition was placed on board for final hearing on 11 July 2013. After hearing both the sides, the Court came to the conclusion that the letter dated 12 March 2004 was considered as clear admission on the part of the respondent-company and the company petition was allowed and the applicant-company was wound up and the Official Liquidator was appointed as Liquidator of the applicant-company. Accordingly, the official liquidator was appointed as regards the applicant-company. The present application is thereafter taken out on 7 August 2013 placing on record that the applicant-company has settled the dues of the original petitioner and they have arrived at an amicable settlement. The learned counsel for the original petitioner confirms this position.

¶17

By order dated 12 September 2013, the Official Liquidator was directed to issue necessary advertisement in respect of the reliefs sought in the application. The Official Liquidator has filed an affidavitin-reply dated 8 October 2013 placing on record that advertisement has been issued and no claims have been received pursuant to the advertisement.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant -company is commercially solvent and the applicant is desirous of in continuing its business. It is stated that there are several employees depending on the respondent-company for their livelihood. The learned counsel states that if the operation of the respondent-company is brought

¶19

ca-404.13.doc

¶20

ppn 3

¶21

to standstill then it will cause irreparable loss to the minimum employees. The learned counsel states that since the applicant-company has paid off the dues of the original petitioner and there are no other claimants, the order of winding up be permanently stayed. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant-company will continue its business in its present form and continue to employ the employees as per their service conditions, the relief sought for in the application is granted to the applicant. The statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant as regards continuation of the business of the applicantcompany is accepted.

¶22

Considering the overall facts and there are no other claimants except the original petitioner and that the learned counsel for the applicant has made a specific statement regarding continuation of the business, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a-1) of the application. The applicant will pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Official Liquidator.

¶23

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Gaurav Trehan v. the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay of Catrack Entertainment Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Trehan v. the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay of Catrack Entertainment Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Anand Mehta, Sole Proprietor of M/S.Steelman Engineering and Forgings Vs M/S.Ag Conveying Systems Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.U29299PN2008PTC131563

Ajay Plastics Pvt.Ltd. Vs ---

Flair Pens Ltd. Vs ---

Killick Nixon Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of Geekay Exim (India) Ltd.

John Francis Anthony Gonsalves and Anr. Vs Colin M. Rebello

Vilas Baburao Parab Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay of Ajit Glass Works Pvt.Ltd, in Liqn.