The petitioner company petition for some relief was not pressed because the company was already ordered to be wound up in a separate matter. Consequently, the current petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
23-CP-590-15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 590 OF 2015
M/s. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Rivolta Auto Industries Pvt.Ltd. …Respondent
Mr. Kaleem Dehlvi, a/w Mr. Srinivas Atreya, i/b Indialaw, for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : A.K. MENON, J. DATE : 19th September 2016
P.C. :
1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that
the Company has been ordered to be wound up by the order dated 12th December 2014 passed in Company Petition No. 170 of 2014.
2. In view of the said order, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not press this Petition. However, he states that he will file a claim before the Official Liquidator.
3. The Petition is dismissed, as not pressed.
[A.K. MENON, J.]
Sharayu . 1 / 1
M/s. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.
M/s. Rivolta Auto Industries Pvt.Ltd.
A.K. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
