Dismissed

Mrs. Swati Verma and 3 Others v. Quadrile Management Services Pvt.Ltd. - U74999MH2007PTC175830

Bombay HC23 Oct 2013CP/493/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a winding up petition concerning Quadrile Management Services Pvt. Ltd., the court rejected the petition. It observed that the underlying summary suit decree was set aside by consent upon deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- and allowed restoration. Consequently, the court held no case for winding up and kept the parties' contentions open in the pending civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Winding up petition rejected pending adjudication of the claim in the restored summary suit.

Mrs. Swati Verma and 3 Others Vs Quadrile Management… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

6cp493-12fl.sxw

¶2

spb/

¶3

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

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 493 OF 2012

¶5

Mrs. Swati Verma & three others

¶6

… Petitioners.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Quadrile Management Services Pvt. Ltd., … Respondent.

¶9

Mr. Bimal Rajshekhar i/by M/s. Ashwin Shankar for the Petitioners. Mr. Subodh Joshi for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 23 OCTOBER, 2013

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 By this petition, the petitioner seeks winding up of the respondent company viz. Quadrile Management Services Pvt. Ltd..

¶13

2 Perusal of the statutory notice dated 2 July 2012 indicates that the notice is primarily based on the decree passed by this court in a summary suit no. 2168 of 2011. On 25 June 2013 when the petition came up on board, a following order came to be passed :

¶14

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had filed a Summary Suit No.2168 of 2011 which was initially decreed by way of an exparte order. The Learned counsel submitted that by order dated 21 December 2012 in Notice of Motion No. 1558 of 2012 taken out in Summary Suit No. 2168 of 2011, by consent, the exparte decree was set

1/3

Borey

6cp493-12fl.sxw

spb/

aside on a condition that the respondent company deposits an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the Suit was restored. The learned counsel submits that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been deposited by the respondent company. As far as rest of the amount is concerned, the matter will have to be agitated in the Summary Suit which is now pending.

¶20

2. In view of the above development and the fact that Summary Suit has been restored by consent of the parties upon deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-, the present winding up proceeding need not be kept pending. However, since the respondent is not represented in this Company Petition so far, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will give notice of the Petition to the learned counsel for the respondent company who has represented the respondent company in the Summary Suit.

¶21

3 Thus it appears that the decree in a summary suit which is the basis of the present winding up petition has been set aside on the condition that the respondent company deposits an amount of Rs. Ten lakhs. It is an admitted position that this amount of Rs. Ten lakhs has been deposited.

¶22

4 Though in law, a civil suit and the winding up proceeding can proceed simultaneously, in the facts of the present case where the ex-parte decree was the basis of the winding up of the petition has been set aside and as substantial amount has been deposited by the respondent company, I do not think that a case is made out for winding up of the company. The claim made by the petitioner will be adjudicated on its own merits in the suit. All contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open.

2/3

Borey

6cp493-12fl.sxw

spb/

5 The petition is accordingly rejected with clarification as

above.

(N.M.JAMDAR,J.)

3/3

Borey

Mrs. Swati Verma and 3 Others v. Quadrile Management Services Pvt.Ltd. - U74999MH2007PTC175830

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Swati Verma and 3 Others v. Quadrile Management Services Pvt.Ltd. - U74999MH2007PTC175830

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

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay

Anil P Gupta, Prop. of Laxmi Impex Vs Yuvak Fine Lab.Ltd.

Association of Chemicals Workers Union Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Hico Products Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Mr.Sanket Dedhia Vs M/S.Tricom India Ltd., Cin NO.L65910MH1992PLC068953

Mr. Javed Akhtar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Mohansing Bajaj Propritor of M/S. Finvest Corporation Vs Sachinam Travels Pvt. Ltd. - U63040MH1989PTC052333