Allowed

Force Components Pvt.Ltd and Anr. v. Manisha Parmar

Bombay HC5 Jul 2018CA/366/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed an application to sell corporate property to deposit Rs. 2.11 Crore under consent terms. The court permitted the sale with a condition that the amount be deposited with the Prothonotary or handed to the petitioner's advocate for deposit, with liberty to the seller to proceed if the petitioner's representative is absent.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; liberty granted to purchaser to deposit Rs. 2.11 Crore with Prothonotary or to hand over for immediate deposit by advocates.

Force Components Pvt.Ltd and Anr. Vs Manisha Parmar — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

905.CAL-373-2018.doc

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION (L) NO.373 OF 2018 IN

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO.441 OF 2015

¶6

M/s. Force Components Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶7

….Applicants

¶8

Manisha Parmar ….Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s. Force Components Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondent

¶11

Mr. Benny Joseph a/w. Mr. Aniruddha Lad I/b. BJ Law Offices LLP for petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Shakuntala A. Mudbidri for respondent and applicants in CAL/373/2018.

¶13

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 5^th JULY 2018

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1 This application is taken out for leave to dispose off an asset of

¶16

respondent company to pay a sum of Rs.2,11,00,000/- that is payable as per clause – 5 of the consent terms dated 4^th June 2018.

¶17

2 Mr. Joseph, counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has no objection to the sale of the property mentioned in prayer clause – (a) of the application provided a sum of Rs.2,11,00,000/- out of the sale consideration is directly paid by the proposed purchaser with Prothonotary and Senior

¶18

Master, High Court, Bombay. Ms. Mudbidri, counsel for applicants/respondent has no objection to this suggestion of Mr. Joseph.

Gauri Gaekwad

905.CAL-373-2018.doc

2/3

3 In the circumstances, the application is allowed and accordingly

¶23

disposed in terms of prayer clause – (a) which reads as under :

¶24

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the applicants to sell/dispose off immovable property being Sai Vansh Building No.2B, situate at K.T. Industrial Park No.2, Gaurai Pada, Walive, Vasai (E), District Palghar, Thane, Maharashtra belonging to respondent company with liberty to the proposed purchaser to deposit with the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay, an amount of Rs.2 Crore, eleven lakhs only as per consent terms dated 4/6/2018 and order dated 4/6/2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Company Petition no.441 of 2015.

¶25

4 Ms. Mudbidri states that if petitioner is having any apprehension, the pay order of Rs.2,11,00,000/- that the prospective buyer will hand over can be handed over to petitioner's advocates at the time of registration of the Sale Deed directly and petitioner's advocates can deposit that amount with Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay. Mr. Joseph states that this suggestion is acceptable. Ms. Mudbidri states that they will give atleast two days advance notice in writing to the advocates for petitioner mentioning therein the date, time and venue.

¶26

5 It is clarified that if the advocate for petitioner or their

¶27

representative does not remain present at the date and time fixed, respondent company may go ahead with the deal and need not postpone the transaction.

¶28

6 Ms. Mudbidri tenders a certified extract of the resolution passed by respondent company on 30^th June 2018 authorising any of the

Gauri Gaekwad

905.CAL-373-2018.doc

3/3

Directors to sell the property mentioned in prayer clause – (a) of the company application. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

¶33

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶34

Gauri Gaekwad

Force Components Pvt.Ltd and Anr. v. Manisha Parmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Force Components Pvt.Ltd and Anr. v. Manisha Parmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Darooka Vs Bg Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U74999MH2013PTC241185

Schott Kaisha Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sriguru Credit Capital Services Ltd. Cin No. U65921MH1995PLC084440

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay Vs Magnasound (I) Ltd.

Prakash Shah, Sole Prop of M/S Nimit Impex Vs M/S Nik-San Engineering Company Ltd. Cin No. U31102MH2004PLC235017

M/S. Nik- San Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs Shri. Prakash Shah Sole Propritors of M/S Nimit Impex

M/S. Nik- San Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs Shri. Prakash Shah Sole Propritors of M/S Nimit Impex