Disposed

Kiran Metal Corporation v. Pranav Construction Systems Private Limted (Cin U29246MH2003PTC142133)

Bombay HC29 Jan 2015CP/303/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, under consent order, directed the respondent company to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- to the petitioner in instalments. The court accepted an undertaking to this effect and stipulated that if the company defaults, the winding-up petition shall be allowed.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- in instalments accepted; Company Petition to be allowed on default.

Kiran Metal Corporation Vs Pranav Construction Systems… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2015)

Nitin

942-CP-303-2014

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

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO. 303 OF 2014

¶6

Kiran Metal Corporation … Petitioner Versus

¶7

Pranav Construction Systems Private Limited … Respondent

¶8

Mr. H. Shaikh i/b. Jus Consultus for the Petitioner. Mr. Deepak jamsandekar for the Respondent.

¶9

Mr. Harsnvardhan Kaushik, Sr. Vice President (Finance & Account) of Respondent, present.

¶10

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 29TH JANUARY, 2015

¶11

P.C.

¶12

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

¶13

i. Mr. Harsnvardhan Kaushik, Sr. Vice President (Finance & Account) of the Company is present. On instructions from the Directors of

¶14

the Respondent Company he undertakes to pay an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the Petitioner in full and final settlement of the claim of the Petitioner against the Company as follows :

¶15

Rs. 2,50,000/On or before 30^th January, 2015

¶16

Rs. 5,00,000/On or before 12^th February, 2015

¶17

The undertaking is accepted.

¶18

ii. Upon payment of the entire amount as undertaken by the

¶19

2 942-CP-303-2014

¶20

Nitin

¶21

Company in clause (i) above, the parties shall have no claim against each other.

¶22

iii. As far as the claim pertaining to Invoice No. 11333 for Rs. 54,180/- dated 10^th January, 2013 is concerned, the Petitioner shall be entitled to take out appropriate proceedings including filing of a Suit to recover the said amount.

¶23

iv. In the event of the Company committing default in complying with the above undertaking, the above Company Petition shall without reference to this Court stand allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Petition, which are reproduced hereunder :

¶24

“(a) that the Company namely, Pranav Construction Systems Private Limited, having its registered office at Plot No. C-10, T.T.C. Industrial Estate, M.I.D.C. Pawne, Navi Mumbai – 400 705. Dist. Thane, State – Maharashtra be wound up according to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. (b) that the Official Liquidator or some other fit and proper person be appointed as Liquidator of the Company with all powers under the Companies Act 1956 and to take charge of the Company and to conduct its affairs in the course of its winding up”.

¶25

The above Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.)

Kiran Metal Corporation v. Pranav Construction Systems Private Limted (Cin U29246MH2003PTC142133)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Metal Corporation v. Pranav Construction Systems Private Limted (Cin U29246MH2003PTC142133)

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

M/S. Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited and Another Vs M/S. Thermax Instrumentation Limited and Ors.

Mr. Ashwin P. Vora and Another Vs Bhupendra M. Shah and Ors.

M/S. Pon Pure Chem (P) Ltd. Vs M/S. Nicomet Industries Limited CIN-U27200MH1993PLC071450

Mitcon Consultancy and Engineering Services Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Shetkari Sugar Ltd. (Cin U15424MH2007PLC172811)

Mahendra Gumanmal Lodha Vs Shree Rajlaxmi Logistics Ltd., Cin NO.U63012MH2007PLC172685

Rajiv Ranjan Vs Igate Global Solutions Ltd. (Cin U85110PN1993PLC145950)