Quashed

Mr. Sadanand S. Shetty v. Official Liquidator of M/S. Navinon Ltd.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2013CA/673/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji and Dadra and Nagar Haveli quashed an order by the Official Liquidator of M/s. Navinon Ltd. for failing to state reasons for partially allowing an applicant's claim. The court directed the Liquidator to pass a fresh reasoned order and communicate it within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Official Liquidator dated 10 September 2012 was quashed. The Official Liquidator was directed to pass a fresh order giving reasons and communicate it to the applicant within two weeks

Mr. Sadanand S. Shetty Vs Official Liquidator of… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2013)

CA673-12

Sequeira

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

¶5

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 673 OF 2012 IN

¶6

COMPANY PETITION NO. 1176 OF 2001

¶7

Mr.Sadanand S. Shetty.	.. Applicant
Vs.
The Official Liquidator of
M/s.Navinon Ltd.	.. Respondent
In the matter between-
Indian Link Chain Manufacturing Ltd	.. Ori. petitioner

¶8

Mr.Mahendra Agavekar i/b Mrs.Shamika S.Ranade, for applicant. Ms Rupa Sutar, Assistant Official Liquidator present. Ms Yogini Chauhan, Assistant Official Liquidator present.

¶9

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR J. Thursday, 17 January, 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

By this Company application filed by a staff member of the Company under liquidation, the applicant prays that the Official Liquidator be directed to furnish details and reasons in support of the order passed partly allowing the claim of the applicant.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Official Liquidator, on 10 September 2012. The learned counsel points out that claim submitted by the applicant was for Rs.7 lakhs while the Official Liquidator by the order dated 10 September 2012 has granted only Rs.94,772/-. Perusal of the order dated 10

¶13

2 CA673-12

¶14

September 2012 shows that there are no reasons given as to why the claim of the applicant is being restricted to Rs.94,772/-.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant relies on rule 163 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959. This rule states that, when the liquidator rejects a proof wholly or in part he shall state the grounds of rejection. In view of this rule order passed by the Official Liquidator on 10 September 2012 without giving reasons, is required to be quashed and set aside. The Official Liquidator shall pass a fresh order giving reasons in support of the order and communicate the same to the applicant within two weeks from today.

¶16

It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as expression on merits of the contentions of rival parties.

¶17

Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶18

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

Mr. Sadanand S. Shetty v. Official Liquidator of M/S. Navinon Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sadanand S. Shetty v. Official Liquidator of M/S. Navinon 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

Mrs. Shukla Ramlubhya Mehra Vs Official Liquidator of M/S. Polynit Pvt. Limited (in Liqn.)

Lee and Muirhead Private Limited Vs Samruddha Resources Ltd, - U51900MH1997PLC112284

M/S. Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Out of Home Media (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Spring Vally Hotel and Restaurant (Dhru Bar and Restaurant), through Mahesh Shivram Putharan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited Vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.

Suresh R. Hujbund Vs Official Liquidaor of M/S. Navinon Limited