Disposed

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

Bombay HC16 Feb 2016OAR/20/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an Official Assignee's report regarding an insolvency petition. The Official Assignee sought permission to use interest on sale proceeds for expenses and requested disposal of the report. The applicants consented. The court approved the use of interest and disposed of the report.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to Official Assignee to pay valuer and other expenses from interest generated on investment of sale proceeds.

Suraj Prakash Khemchand Vs Avinash B. Jaising and… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

OAR20.15-9

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN INSOLVENCY JURISDICTION

¶4

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE'S REPORT NO.20 OF 2015 IN INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.28 OF 2001 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.46 OF 2013 IN INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.82 OF 2002 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4 OF 2014 IN

¶5

INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.82 OF 2002

¶6

Suraj Prakash Khemchand ….Applicant V/s.

¶7

Avinash B.Jaisingh & Bansi J.Jaisingh ....Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.48 OF 2014 IN

¶10

INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.28 OF 2001

¶11

WITH

¶12

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE REPORT NO.3 OF 2016

¶13

¶14

INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.28 OF 2001 INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.82 OF 2002

¶15

Uttamchand Devichand Shah )....Applicant

¶16

V/s.

¶17

Ravi B.Jaising & Anr. )....Respondents

¶18

Adv.K.S.Lalwani for the petitioning creditor.

¶19

Mr.Sailesh Thakkar i/by Sailesh Thakkar & Co. for insolvent-Avinash Jaising.

¶20

Mr.Vipul Shukla i/by Jayesh Vyas for insolvents viz.Bansi Jaising and Ravi Jaising.

OAR20.15-9

Mr.Amit D.Nikam i/by Kamal & Co. for the applicant. Mr.M.D.Narvekar, Official Assignee present.

¶25

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 16.2.2016

¶26

P.C.:-

¶27

1 The official assignee, at this point, is pressing only prayer clause-(a) in Official Assignee's Report No.20 of 2015. Mr.Thakkar appearing for one of the insolvent Avinash Bansi Jaising states it is difficult for his client to go every time to well-wisher to deposit money with the official assignee. He states that the assets of the insolvent have been sold and the official assignee has almost Rs.10 crores. He requests that the interest generated on Rs.10 crores could be used for the expenses mentioned in prayer clause-(a). Advocates Mr.Shukla and Ms.Lalwani have no objection. The official assignee therefore, to pay the valuer from the interest generated on the investments made of the sale proceeds. In addition to this, if there are any other expenses, the official assignee may use the interest amount to disburse those amounts.

¶28

2 As regards remaining prayers in the Official Assignee's Report, the official assignee states that he will file a fresh report should need arise and the official assignee's report at this point of time can be disposed. Official Assignee's Report accordingly, disposed.

OAR20.15-9

3 In the order dated 1.12.2015 in paragraph-5 “Notice of Motion (lodg.) No.46 of 2014” to read as “Notice of Motion No.46 of 2013”. Rest of the order remains unaltered. In view of the above, Notice of Motion (lodg.) No.46 of 2014 is restored to file. The applicant to take steps to remove all office objections and have the Notice of Motion numbered within two weeks from today failing which the Notice of Motion shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the court.

¶33

4 Notice of Motion (L) No.48 of 2014

¶34

All office objections to be removed within two weeks and Notice of Motion to be numbered failing which the Notice of Motion shall stand dismissed without further reference to the court.

¶35

Stand over to 15.3.2016.

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

OAR20.15-9

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/Order.

¶42

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Software One India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Netwing Technologies Private Ltd. (Cin U72900MH2005PTC153766)

Truim Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Pride Hotel Cin No. U55200DL1983PLC219781

SBI Global Factors Ltd. Vs M/S. K Sera Sera Production Ltd. Ltd. -L22100MH1995PLC092438

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

Vasudeo Ganesh Potdar Vs Sardesai and Company and Ors.

Agilent Technologies Singapore (Sales) Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ashco Niulab Industries Ltd. - L28920MH1986PLC039437