Disposed

Metalmeccanica Fracasso India Private Limited v. the Official Liquidator

Bombay HC1 Nov 2017CA/502/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Company application filed seeking direction to restore possession to the respondent-company. Court noted the underlying company petition was dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to deposit publication charges, which ended the provisional liquidator's appointment. The court directed the liquidator to restore possession.

What did the court decide?

Provisional liquidator directed to restore symbolic possession to the respondent-company and communicate the same.

Metalmeccanica Fracasso India Private Limited Vs the… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

903.cal.559.2017.cp.421.2016.doc

¶3

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

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 559 OF 2017 IN

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO. 421 OF 2016

¶6

Metalmeccanica Fracasso India Private Limited .. Applicant

¶7

In the matter between :

¶8

Naresh Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs. Metalmeccanica Fracasso India Private Limited & Anr. .. Respondents

¶9

Ms.Deepti B. Mistry a/w. Ms. Mansi Jani i/b Panindia Legal for applicant/original respondents.

¶10

Mr.Jai Shah i/b Law Frame for respondent/original petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Mahendhar Aithe, company prosecutor for official liquidator present.

¶12

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 1^ST NOVEMBER 2017

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1 At the outset, Ms. Mistry for applicant-original respondent seeks leave to amend the application. Leave granted. The proposed amendment is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The amendment to be carried out before the end of this week.

¶15

2 The application made today is to direct the official liquidator, who is appointed as Provisional Liquidator, to restore possession to the company,

1/3

Shraddha Talekar PS

903.cal.559.2017.cp.421.2016.doc

¶20

symbolic possession of which was taken on 26^th October 2017. According to applicant, who is respondent in the company petition, clause (iii) of paragraph 4 of the order dated 12^th September 2017 provides as under :

¶21

“4 …..

¶22

(iii) The Petitioner shall, within a period of two weeks from today, deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court towards publication charges with intimation to the Company Registrar, failing which the Company Petition shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution.”

¶23

2 The counsel for applicant states that petitioner did not comply with this direction of depositing Rs.10,000/- with office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay within two weeks provided and accordingly the petition got dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶24

3 The counsel appearing for petitioner agrees that this amount of Rs.10,000/- has not been deposited till date and despite communications sent to petitioner he is not receiving any instructions. The counsel states that petitioner has failed to comply with the directions given in Paragraph 4(iii) of the order dated 12^th September 2017.

¶25

4 It is correct that the petition got dismissed for non-prosecution by a self operative order passed on 12^th September 2017 and therefore, the appointment of Provisional Liquidator also came to an end and

2/3

Shraddha Talekar PS

903.cal.559.2017.cp.421.2016.doc

¶30

consequently Provisional Liquidator could not have taken symbolic possession on 26^th October 2017.

¶31

5 In the circumstances, Provisional Liquidator is directed to restore possession to respondent-company and communication in that regard to be addressed during the course of this week.

¶32

6 Application disposed.

¶33

Notwithstanding disposal of the application, all office objections to be

¶34

removed and application to be numbered within two weeks.

¶35

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶36

3/3

¶37

Shraddha Talekar PS

Metalmeccanica Fracasso India Private Limited v. the Official Liquidator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Metalmeccanica Fracasso India Private Limited v. the Official Liquidator

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

Consulting Engineering Services (India) Private Limited Vs Supreme Mahavir Panvel Indapur Tollways Private Limited

Babulal Pukhraj Sanghvi Prop. of M/S Nandishwar Steel Vs M/S Snsp Engineers Private Limited Cin 74999PN1998PTC012799

Amit Sharma Vs Gol Offshore Limited

Sardar Patel Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs Associated Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Suresh Patel and 18 Ors. (Applicant)

Sardar Patel Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs Associated Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Shree Samarth Erectors and Developers Vs Kanak Dixit and 4 Others