Dismissed

Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd. v. Sunearth Ceramics Ltd.- U26940MH1978PLC020402

Bombay HC7 Oct 2013CA/408/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the applicant's petition to be joined as a respondent in a winding-up petition. The applicant failed to deposit the required security amount of Rs. 8 crores and file the directed undertaking by the stipulated deadline, leading the court to conclude the application was only an attempt to delay proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; applicant ordered to deposit costs of Rs. 25,000 with the registry.

Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd. Vs Sunearth Ceramics… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

2ca408-13fl.sxw

¶2

spb/

¶3

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

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 408 OF 2013 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 244 OF 2012 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.244 OF 2012

¶5

Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd.,

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

In the matter between : Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd., … Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd., … Respondent.

¶10

Mr. Amit Survase for the Applicant.

¶11

Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate a/with Mr. F. Sayed i/by M/s. M. K. Ambalal & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms. Purvi Doctor i/by India Law Alliance for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 07 OCTOBER, 2013

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1 This company application is taken out for allowing the applicant to be joined as party respondent in company petition no. 244 of 2012. The company petition no. 244 of 2012 has been taken out by the original petitioner for seeking winding up of the respondent – Sunearth Ceramics Ltd..

¶15

2 On the last occasion, i.e. on 03 September, 2013 this company application was heard at length and following order came to be passed, which reads thus :

1/3

Borey

2ca408-13fl.sxw

spb/

“The learned counsel for the applicant states that as condition precedent for hearing of this application further, to show its bonafides, the applicant will deposit an amount of Rs.8 crores in the Registry of this Court by 1 October 2013. The undertaking of the Directors along with Resolution passed by the applicant-company to do so will be filed within a period of one week from today. The learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, states that no further time for deposit of Rs.8 crores will be sought. Undertaking to that effect shall also be filed. Only upon deposit of this amount, the merit of the company application will be considered further. This deposit will be without prejudice to rights and contention of the parties as regard the application If the amount is deposited in the Registry of this Court, it will be open to the applicant and the petitioner to have a joint meeting but not before the deposit of the amount. In the meanwhile, it will be open to the respondent-original petitioner to file a reply affidavit.

¶21

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that while hearing of the company application and the company petition is being deferred, the respondentcompany should not take any further steps in the proceedings filed before the BIFR/AIFR. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-company states that all the proceedings/pleadings have already been filed before the BIFR/AIFR and on its own accord, the respondent-company will not proceed with the matter pending before the BIFR/AIFR till the next date. If the matter is notified the respondent-company will make an application for adjournment in view of the developments in the present company petition. This undertaking, on instructions, is accepted.

¶22

3. Stand over to 7 October 2013 at 3.00 p.m.”

¶23

3 On that day, the learned counsel for the applicant had agreed, as a condition precedent for hearing of this application

2/3

Borey

spb/

2ca408-13fl.sxw

further that the applicant will deposit an amount of Rs. 8 Crores in the Registry of this Court by 01 October 2013. An undertaking of the Directors with resolution passed, was directed to be filed within one week from that date. The learned counsel on instructions stated that no further time will be sought. Undertaking to that effect was directed to be filed. It was specifically directed that only upon deposit of this amount the application will be heard further.

¶29

4 The learned counsel for the applicant tenders a scanned copy of the letter issued by an investors to the applicant regarding grant/ confirmation of some financial proposal. No money as directed has been deposited. Even today, there is demand draft. Undertakings as directed have not been filed. No extension was sought before 01 October, 2013. It appears that the only intention of the applicant was to some how delay the hearing of the company petition to benefit the respondent company. No further indulgence can be shown. In these circumstances and in view of the order passed on 03 September 2013, this company application cannot be entertained and deserves to be rejected.

¶30

5 The company application is accordingly rejected.

¶31

6 Considering the fact that the applicant has achieved its object, viz. to delay the hearing of the company petition and has not honored its own undertaking, the applicant shall deposit costs of Rs. 25,000/- with the registry of this court, which the petitioner will be entitled to withdraw. Order accordingly.

¶32

(N.M.JAMDAR,J.)

¶33

3/3

¶34

Borey

Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd. v. Sunearth Ceramics Ltd.- U26940MH1978PLC020402

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd. v. Sunearth Ceramics Ltd.- U26940MH1978PLC020402

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

Hallmark Cards Inc. Vs Vintage Cards and Creations Limited - l22190MH1996PLC103009

Aricent Commercial Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs --

Aaa and Sons Enterprise Pvt.Lt.D Vs --

Housing Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Paranjape Construction Co. and Ors. and Vijay v. Kalsekar Nd 82 Ors.

Ravi Kiran Aggarwal Vs the Shri Krishna Hindu Merchants Club and Ors.

Shyam Narayan and Brothers Vs P. N. Writer and Company Private Limited