Disposed

Mr. Jitendra D. Vora v. M/S. Shree Sai Oto Tubes Mill Ltd. CIN-U27320MH2010PLC207716

Bombay HC11 Jul 2016NMA/702/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two appeals against orders dismissing winding-up petitions were disposed of by granting interim injunctions restraining the respondent from parting with possession or creating third-party interests in its immovable and movable assets pending final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Interim injunction restraining the respondent from parting with possession or creating third-party interests in all immovable and movable assets pending final disposal.

Mr. Jitendra D. Vora Vs M/S. Shree Sai Oto… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

nmw-702,709.16

pmw

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

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.702 OF 2016 IN APPEAL NO.203 OF 2016 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.376 OF 2014

¶6

Jitendra D. Vora … Applicant In the matter between Mr. Jitendra D. Vora … Appellant Versus M/s. Shree Sai Oto Tube Mills Ltd. … Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.709 OF 2016 IN

¶9

APPEAL NO.202 OF 2016 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.372 OF 2014

¶10

Manish D. Vora … Applicant In the matter between Manish D. Vora … Appellant Versus M/s. Shree Sai Oto Tube Mills Ltd. … Respondent

¶11

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Mayur Agre i/by Ms. Divya Sanghavi for the Appellant/ Applicant.

¶12

Mr. Darins Shroff, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Neerav B. Merchant i/by Thakordas Madgavkar for the Respondents in both matters.

¶13

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 11^th JULY, 2016

¶15

P.C.

¶16

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and

¶17

the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Company. The

¶18

1 of 3

¶19

2 nmw-702,709.16

¶20

appeals against orders dismissing Company Petitions for winding up have been admitted. There are two affidavits filed on record by the Respondent Company contending that the assets of the Company have been mortgaged to Canara Bank and the documents evidencing mortgage have been annexed to the affidavit of Shri Jayprakash M. Vyas, Managing Director of the Respondent Company dated 16^th April, 2016. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Company states that as far as mortgaged assets are concerned, there is no question of creating any third party rights. However, he submits that the registered office of the Company does not belong to the Respondent Company and it is owned by one of the Directors. However, we find that though a specific prayer for injunction is made in both the Notices of Motions in respect of the said office, no such plea is raised in both the affidavits filed by the Respondent.

¶21

2 Hence, we dispose of the Notices of Motions by passing the following order :-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) There will be interim injunction restraining the Respondent Company from parting with possession and/or from creating any third party interests of whatsoever in respect of all its immovable assets

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

3 nmw-702,709.16

¶26

pending the final disposal of the Appeal. There will be a similar interim injunction in respect of movable assets restraining the Respondent Company from transferring or creating third party rights till the disposal of the Appeal except in ordinary and usual course of its business. We make it clear that this relief will be operative in relation to the registered office of the Company at Borivali (W), Mumbai, the factory at Bhuj in Gujarat and other immovable property of the Company;

¶27

(ii) We grant liberty to the Respondent Company to apply in the event the Respondent Company desires to create any third party rights or desires to part with possession of the said property;

¶28

(iii) Notices of Motions are disposed of on above terms.

¶29

(A.A. SAYED, J ) (A.S. OKA, J )

¶30

3 of 3

Mr. Jitendra D. Vora v. M/S. Shree Sai Oto Tubes Mill Ltd. CIN-U27320MH2010PLC207716

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Jitendra D. Vora v. M/S. Shree Sai Oto Tubes Mill Ltd. CIN-U27320MH2010PLC207716

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

Ramzan Jamil Sayyed Vs Vikram Deshmane and Ors.

Kalpesh Ramchandr Dandekar @ Wadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jaya Talakshi Chheda Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash P. Baldia and Anil P. Baldia Vs Harmit S. Chadha and Suneet Chadha

Shri Anil Mohan Jaokar Vs Mr. Jayant Subrao Divgi and 2 Ors.

The State O Fmaharashtra Vs Sanjay Nirmal Nopany and Anr.