A petition in a company petition regarding a complaint. The court notes submissions that requirements were met and accused resigned. The court finds the complaint will not survive and leads to its discharge.
The complaint is discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPLAINT No. 2 OF 2013
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 489 OF 2004
M/s. Balmer Lawrie Van- Leer Ltd.
..Petitioner.
And
Official Liquidator and Liquidator of M/s. Vishuddha Rasayanee Pvt. Ltd [in Liquidation]
..Complainant.
Versus
Kanegaonkar R. Gajanan and Ors. ..Accused/Respondents.
Ms. Rupa Sutar, AOL – the Complainant Present. Mr. Rahul Oak for Accused Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Milind G. Sakpal i/b N.B.Rao for Accused no.5.
Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b V. Deshpande & Co., for IARC – Secured Creditor.
Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : April 4, 2013 .
P. C. :
accused no.1 and accused no.3 are one and the same person. By consent of all, therefore, name of accused no.3 is allowed to be deleted. The Complainant shall carry out necessary
1 / 2
patilsr
amendment in the cause title of complaint.
the requirements made by the Official Liquidator are complied with. The Official Liquidator does not dispute this statement.
[RANJIT MORE, J.]
2 / 2
patilsr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint survives given the submissions regarding resignation and compliance by the accused.
Whether accused no. 1 and accused no. 3 are the same person and if the name of accused no. 3 should be deleted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Balmer Lawrie Van- Leer Ltd.
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
