Dismissed

M/S Basava Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S the Bombay Dyeing and Manugacturing Co. Ltd. Cin L17120MH1879PLC000037

Bombay HC10 Aug 2016CP/214/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The City Civil Judge granted leave to withdraw and dismissed the Company Petition after the Respondent deposited the settlement amount via Demand Draft and committed to issuing TDS/WCT certificates later.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw Company Petition; Petition dismissed as withdrawn; no order as to costs.

M/S Basava Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S the Bombay… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1.cp.214.2015.doc

¶2

dik

¶3

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

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 214 OF 2015

¶5

M/s Basava Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner vs M/s The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ...Respondent

¶6

Ms Priyanka Pawar i/b Ms Charvy Hatkanangalekar for the Petitioner Ms Smruti Kanade i/b Negandhi, Shah & Himaytullah for the Respondent

¶7

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA J.

¶8

AUGUST 10, 2016

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

On the last occasion, namely, 20 July, 2016, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Company had stated that they were willing to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lacs (before deduction of the TDS ) towards full and final settlement of the claim made by the Petitioner in the present Company Petition. The Petitioner on its part had agreed to the same. In this light, the matter was placed for settlement today.

¶11

2 Today, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Company has handed over the “ Demand Draft ” in the sum of Rs.4,81,589/- to the Petitioner in the full and final settlement

¶12

Pg 1 of 2

¶13

1.cp.214.2015.doc

¶14

of the claims of the Petitioner in the present Company Petition. The learned Advocate for the Respondent Company further states that this amount is paid after deduction of the TDS as well as WCT aggregating to Rs.18,411/-. She states that the Respondent Company undertakes to furnish the requisite certificates evidencing payment of these taxes to the requisite authorities within a period of two months from the date when the taxes are deposited with the requisite authorities. The said statement is accepted.

¶15

3 Considering that the payment has now been made by the Respondent Company to the Petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner seek leave to withdraw this Company Petition. In view of the fact that the Company Petition is not yet admitted or advertised, leave is granted and the Company Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.

¶16

Pg 2 of 2

M/S Basava Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S the Bombay Dyeing and Manugacturing Co. Ltd. Cin L17120MH1879PLC000037

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Basava Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S the Bombay Dyeing and Manugacturing Co. Ltd. Cin L17120MH1879PLC000037

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Union Roadways Ltd. Vs M/S Satec Envir Engg India Pvt. Ltd. Cin U29197MH1991PTC064661

Hemraj Devekarandas Metals and Minerals Private Limited Vs M/S Shree Oshiya Strips Impex Private Limitted Cin U27205MH2010PTC202214

Kunal Thakkar Prop. Global Inx Vs M/S Greatwhite Global Pvt.Ltd. Cin No. U31200MH1994PTC078604

M. C. Gambhira Director of M/S Boltmaster India (P) Ltd. Vs M/S Zarhak Steels Ltd.

M/S Bansal Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs Murli Industries Ltd. Cin No. L01110MH1991PLC064271

M/S Bansal Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs Murli Industries Ltd. Cin No. L01110MH1991PLC064271