On an application for stay against the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator in Company Petition No. 488 of 2015, the High Court rejected the stay in light of several pending company petitions and the unjustified nature of the drastic step taken by the Company Court.
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.
NMAL 2898-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2898 OF 2016 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 367 OF 2016 IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 488 OF 2015
Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited V/s
Puspasen C. Jhaveri
.. Appellant
.. Respondent
Mr. Ali Abbas Delhiwala with Mr. Kaushal Parsekar i/b Joy Legal Consultants for the appellant. Mr. K.K. Shroff i/b Jayesh Desai & Associates for the respondent.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 13th OCTOBER 2016
P.C.:
The respondent herein approached the Company Court contending that after accepting the deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- for a period of 90 days from 20th March 2013 to 18th June 2013, in spite of promissory note executed by the appellant Company, neither the principal amount nor the interest accrued on the said deposit lent to the appellant came to be paid. As on the date of presenting the petition, at the time of statutory notice, a sum of Rs.26,12,500/- was due in July 2014. By this time, it must be about Rs.34-35 lakhs.
1 of 3
ABS
NMAL 2898-2016
2 of 3
ABS
NMAL 2898-2016
according to us, the learned Company Judge was justified in appointing the Provisional Liquidator. Accordingly, the application for stay is rejected.
(M.S. SONAK, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE
3 of 3
ABS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a stay should be granted on the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator in pending liquidation proceedings.
Whether the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator by the Company Court was justified given pending petitions and substantial dues.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NEPC India Limited vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.Referred¶16
NEPC India Limited vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2009 LawSuit (Mad) 1292
Kailash Prasad Mishra vs. Medwin Laboratory petitioner. Ltd.Referred¶16
Kailash Prasad Mishra vs. Medwin Laboratory petitioner. Ltd., 1988 Vol.63 Company Cases 81
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited
Puspasen C. Jhaveri
DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
M.S. SONAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
