Disposed

M/S. Neo Impex Stainless Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Abg Cement Ltd. (Cin U3694MH1996PLC185707)

Bombay HC15 Dec 2014CP/339/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge full bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of a Company Petition by passing a consent decree. The respondent agreed to pay the petitioner a specific sum in monthly installments via post-dated cheques and undertook not to be declared a sick or relief undertaking. The court accepted these undertakings and recorded conditions for winding-up in case of default.

What did the court decide?

Respondent undertook to pay petitioner Rs. 6,33,957/- in six monthly installments via post-dated cheques and accepted undertakings not to be declared a sick or relief company, with a clause for windin

M/S. Neo Impex Stainless Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Abg Cement… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

cp 339 of 2014 (926).sxw

¶2

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

¶3

COMPANY PETITION NO.339 OF 2014

¶4

M/s. Neo Impex Stainless Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner V/s. M/s. ABG Cement Ltd. … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Jagdish Nagar, for Petitioner. Ms. Swati Sawant i/by M/s. S.K.Legal Associates, for respondent. Mr. I.I.Khan, Company Secretary of Respondent, present.

¶6

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶7

DATE: 15^th DECEMBER, 2014.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and by consent, the following order is passed :

¶10

(i) The Company undertakes to pay an amount of Rs.6,33,957/- to the Petitioner in full and final settlement of the Petitioner's claim against the Respondent Company.

¶11

(ii) The said amount of Rs.6,33,957/- shall be paid in six equal monthly installments of Rs.1,06,160/-. The first installment shall be paid on or before 05-01-2015 and the balance installments shall be paid on or before 5^th day of each succeeding month.

¶12

(iii) The Director of the Respondent shall handover post dated cheques to the Petitioner within one week from today.

¶13

1/3

¶14

ssp

¶15

cp 339 of 2014 (926).sxw

¶16

(iv) The Company undertakes to this Court that the Company is not a sick Company and that it is not likely to be declared a sick company / industry in the next twelve months and that it does not intend to file an application before the concerned authority for a declaration that the Company is a sick company or industry under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The undertaking is accepted.

¶17

The Company further undertakes to this Court that the Company is not a 'relief undertaking' or an undertaking within the purview of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 and that it is not likely to be declared as such an undertaking in the next twelve months and that it does not intend to file any Application or make any request for such declaration. The undertaking is accepted.

¶18

(v) In the event of the Company committing any default in payment of the aforestated installments, the above Petition shall without reference to this Court stand allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which are reproduced hereunder :

¶19

(a) that the Company namely ABG CEMENT LIMITED, be wound up by this Hon'ble Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956;

¶20

(b) that the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay, be

¶21

2/3

¶22

ssp

¶23

cp 339 of 2014 (926).sxw

¶24

appointed Liquidator with authority and all powers under Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956 to take charge and deal with the assets/properties of the said Company in accordance with law;

¶25

The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶27

3/3

¶28

ssp

M/S. Neo Impex Stainless Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Abg Cement Ltd. (Cin U3694MH1996PLC185707)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Neo Impex Stainless Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Abg Cement Ltd. (Cin U3694MH1996PLC185707)

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

Mr. Anand Mehta Sole Proprietor of M/S. Sttelman Engineering and Forgings Vs M/S. Rivolta Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Cin U28910MH1997PTC105768)

Harshad M. Doshi, Proprietor of H R Enterprises Vs Rivolta Auto Industries Private Limited Cin- U28910MH1997PTC105768

Icici Bank Limited Vs Garware Nylons Limited and Anr.

Ador Welding Ltd, Vs Karpara Project Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Cin NO.U45201MH2002PTC215936

M/S Fortune Metals Ltd. Vs M/S Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (Cin L45200MH1926PLC001228)

Planet M Ratail Ltd. Vs Universal Music India Pvt. Ltd. CIN-432300MH1945PTC004579