Allowed

Mr Pyareraj Tukaram Naik Alias P.T. Naik v. the Offcial Liquidator

Bombay HC17 Feb 2016CA/511/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a company application under a company liquidation suit. Upon a consent settlement between the applicant and respondents regarding the distribution of the company corpus, the court made the application absolute, directed distribution of the funds, and extended compliance timelines from two weeks to eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The company application was made absolute. The official liquidator was directed to distribute the corpus and submit accounts. The compliance timeline was extended to eight weeks.

Mr Pyareraj Tukaram Naik Alias P.T. Naik Vs the Offcial… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

1.ca.511.2014.doc

¶3

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

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.511 OF 2014 IN

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO. 626 OF 1989

¶6

In the matter of Companies Act, I of 1956

¶7

And

¶8

In the matter of M/s. Intex Computer Private Ltd. (In Liquidation)

¶9

Mr.Pyareraj Tukaram Naik .. Applicant And Omega Power Systems .. Petitioner Vs. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay & Ors. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr.Sailesh Thakkar for applicant.

¶11

Mr.Rohit Gupta i/b Mr.Rajkumar Bhavsar for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶12

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 17^TH FEBRUARY, 2016

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1 Prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the application read as under :

¶15

(a ) The Hon'ble Court be please to direct the Respondent to distribute the corpus amount lying with him, to the Applicant in proportion to the extent of his share holding, i.e., 25000 shares out of the total shares 50000, viz., 50% of the amount in the hands of the Respondent of the said Company in Liquidation.

¶16

(b) The Respondent be directed to submit the accounts of the said c ompany in Liquidation to the Applicant.

1/3

Shraddha Talekar PA

1.ca.511.2014.doc

2 The applicant and respondent nos.2 and 3, who were entitled to the

¶22

corpus, have come to a settlement as reproduced in the Minutes of Order dated 17.02.2016 tendered in Court. The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. It also reads as under :

¶23

MINUTES OF ORDER

¶24

1. By consent the Applicant and Intervener/Respondent Nos.2 and 3 , the above Company Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses “a” and “b”.

¶25

2. Respondent No.1 is directed to comply with the prayer clause “b” within 2 weeks from today.

¶26

3. The Respondent No.2 unconditionally withdraws his claim in the corpus lying with the Respondent No.1 in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties hereto.

¶27

4. Respondent No.1 to pay the 50% of the corpus lying with the Respondent No.1 to the Applicant as per prayer clause “a” and the balance 50% of the corpus lying with the Respondent No.1 to the Intervener/Respondent No.3 within four weeks from today.

¶28

5. The Respondent No.3 is residing abroad and hence, cannot come down for signing the consent. In view of that, he has given his confirmation by way of email, which has been annexed hereto. The Respondent No.2 is flying to Delhi for some urgent business and hence he as also given his consent by way of email, which has been annexed hereto.

¶29

6. No order as to cost.

2/3

Shraddha Talekar PA

1.ca.511.2014.doc

3 The time prescribed as two weeks and four weeks in clause 2 and

¶35

clause 4 respectively, to read as four weeks and eight weeks, respectively.

¶36

4 Order in terms of Minutes of Order.

¶37

5 The company application stands disposed accordingly.

¶38

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶39

3/3

¶40

Shraddha Talekar PA

Mr Pyareraj Tukaram Naik Alias P.T. Naik v. the Offcial Liquidator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Pyareraj Tukaram Naik Alias P.T. Naik v. the Offcial Liquidator

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

Suraj Prakash Khemchand Vs 1. Avinash B. Jaising and 2. Bansi J. Jaising

Suraj Prakash Khemchand Vs Avinash B. Jaising and Bansi J. Jaising

Vasudeo Ganesh Potdar Vs Sardesai and Company and Ors.

Devharsh Infotech Private Limited Vs -

Oil Tools International Service Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs Ace Oilfields Supply Inc. and Anr.

Oil Tools International Service Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs Ace Oilfields Supply Inc. and Anr.