Allowed

Smt.Saherbai Surana v. Unity Infrastructure Ltd., Cin NO.U34203PN2002PLC0170130

Bombay HC22 Apr 2014CA/424/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court appointed an official liquidator as provisional liquidator in a company petition. The court found prima facie evidence of forgery by the respondent company and its dishonest conduct in failing to fulfill consent payment terms, issuing notices to directors to show cause for potential action.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of official liquidator as provisional liquidator; restrain company from disposing assets; issue notice to directors to show cause.

1.This is a company application by the original petitioner. It seeks the appointment of a provisional liquidator, and grant of an injunction and action against the respondent for forgery and perjury.

2.The petitioner filed Summary Suit No. 37 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Nasik inter alia against the Company. Consent terms were filed in that Summary Suit on 10th May 2012 in which, the Company agreed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioner. By that time, the petitioner had already filed Company

Petition No. 284 of 2011 in this Court. On these consent terms being executed and filed, the petitioner withdrew Company Petition No. 284 of 2011. However, instead of making payment of the entire amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, the Company paid the petitioner only a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The remaining Rs. 7.5 lakhs the Company supposedly paid “in cash”.

3.It seems that the Company has in subsequent proceedings in execution of the suit put up a receipt alleged to have been signed by the petitioner for this amount of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. There is material to indicate that that receipt is a forgery.

4.Despite service of the Company Petition, and the Company Application, the Company has chosen to stay away from these proceedings. However, it is not as if the Company is unaware of filing of these proceedings. In an affidavit dated 14th March 2013 filed on behalf of the Company in Company Petition No. 107 of 2013 before the Company Law Board, the respondents to that petition have, on behalf of the Company, in paragraph 10E clearly set out that they and the Company acknowledge the filing and pendency of the present Company Application.

5.Having heard Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant, and having considered the affidavit in support and further affidavit dated 17th April 2014, I am of the view that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the applicant for grant of the reliefs. The conduct of the Company not only does not inspire confidence, but is on the face of it dishonest and nothing but an abuse of the process of this Court. Having persuaded the applicant / petitioner to enter into consent terms, and to withdraw the Company Petition on the promise of full payment being made, the Company has not kept its word. It has, instead, raised a clearly false and bogus defence. It has

6.In these circumstances, and for these reasons, the Official Liquidator is appointed provisional liquidator of the Company. He shall forthwith take charge of all the books, assets and properties of the Company. This is also necessary in the interest of the creditors of the Company. For that reason, too, it is necessary for the Company to restrain the Company from creating any dispositions of whatsoever nature of any of its assets, movable or immovable.

7.So far as prayer (c) is concerned, notice be issued to all the directors of the respondent-Company to show cause why appropriate action should not be initiated against them for forgery and perjury. That notice shall be returnable on 17th June 2014.

Smt.Saherbai Surana v. Unity Infrastructure Ltd., Cin NO.U34203PN2002PLC0170130

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Saherbai Surana v. Unity Infrastructure Ltd., Cin NO.U34203PN2002PLC0170130

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

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd. Vs Canbank Financial Services Ltd.

Shree Khodiyar Textiles Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.

Goan Hospitality Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd. and Ors.

Amit Shroff Vs Mi Marathi Media Ltd., Cin NO.U92100MH2004 PLC145070

Mr.Ashok Javarilal Surana Vs Unity Infrastructure Ltd., Cin NO.U34203PN2002PLC0170130

Shivashray Khargu Yadav, Sole Prop of M/S.J.B .Enterprise , Vs M/S.Geruda Support Services Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.U74120MH2008PTC184482