Allowed

Nilgiri Herbals Private Limited v. Mr. Manoj Ashar

Bombay HC27 Aug 2013CA/70/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed for withdrawal of security deposit lodged during proceedings under a winding-up petition. Since the subsequent suit challenging the security order was dismissed, the High Court allowed the withdrawal of the deposit of Rs. Fifteen Lakhs with interest.

What did the court decide?

Application for withdrawal of security deposit of Rs. Fifteen Lakhs with interest allowed.

Nilgiri Herbals Private Limited Vs Mr. Manoj Ashar — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

7ca70-13.sxw

¶2

spb/

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 70 OF 2013 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 863 OF 2000

¶4

Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd.,

¶5

... Applicant.

¶6

In the matter between :

¶7

Mr. Manoj Ashar … Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd., ... Respondent.

¶10

Ms. Faiza Dhanani i/by M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Applicant.

¶11

None for the Petitioner.

¶12

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2013

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1 By this application, the applicant prays that the applicant may be permitted to withdraw security deposit of Rs. Fifteen Lakhs together with interest. The Respondent, the original Petitioner, had filed a company petition for winding up of the Company and for appointment of provisional liquidator. By order dated 29^th March, 2001, this court directed

1/3

Borey

spb/ 7ca70-13.sxw

the applicant to furnish security of Rs. Fifteen Lakhs with liberty to the petitioner to file a suit. The order was challenged by the applicant by way of an appeal, which appeal was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter, filed a suit which suit was dismissed by order dated 31^st July, 2010. It is stated by the applicant in the affidavit that no appeal is preferred against the order of 31^st July, 2010. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the security deposit may be refunded to the applicant.

¶19

2 Since none had appeared on 6^th March, 2013, a notice was directed to be issued to the respondent/ original petitioner. The applicant was also directed to serve the respondent/original petitioner by way of a private notice. The notice has been returned with remark “left”. By order dated 2^nd July, 2013 the applicant was directed to give notice to the Advocate, who had represented the respondent/ original petitioner in the suit. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the Advocate of the petitioner has been duly served. None appears when the matter is called out.

2/3

Borey

spb/ 7ca70-13.sxw

3 By order dated 29^th March 2001, the security was to lie to the credit and account of the suit. This suit has been dismissed. The applicant will be, therefore, entitled to withdraw the security.

¶24

4 Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶25

5 All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order duly issued by the Registry.

¶26

3/3

¶27

Borey

Nilgiri Herbals Private Limited v. Mr. Manoj Ashar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilgiri Herbals Private Limited v. Mr. Manoj Ashar

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

Zubin G Irani - Plaintiff No 1 Vs Anita Z Irani - Plaintiff No 2

Persis Viraf Mory - Plaintiff No 1 Vs Viraf Burjor Mory - Plaintiff No 2

Niraj Cement Structures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Anr.

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Maxx Mobile Communication Ltd., Cin NO.732204MH2004PLC143794

Shukla Ramlubhya Mehra as Sole Proprietress of M/S.Polyhigh Industries. Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay of M/S.Polynit Pvt.Ltd. in Liqn. and Anr.

Smt.Sushila Shamrao Patil Vs the Official Liquidator of Modistone Ltd.(in Liqn.)