Single judge order keeping company applications pending and dismissing contentions regarding the petitioner taking over project completion as no substantive decision was made.
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.
11-CA13-18.DOC
Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2018
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 949 OF 2014
WITH
COMPANY APPLICATION (L) NO. 179 OF 2016
WITH
COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 533 OF 2018
WITH
COMPANY APPLICATION (L) NO. 73 OF 2019
The Square Shop & Flat Owners Associates …Plaintif Versus Mantri Reality Ltd & Anr …Defendants
Mr Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate , i/b JJ Shah, for the Applicant in CA/13/18.
Mr Siddharth Murarka , for the Petitioner.
Mr S Halli , i/b Halli & Associates for the Applicant in CAL/179/16. Mr Sahil Mahajan , for Ex-Director.
Mr Mandar Soman , for the Applicant in CA/533/18.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 4th March 2019
PC:-
Page 1 of 3 4th March 2019
11-CA13-18.DOC
1. Mr Halli on behalf of KK Builders states that his clients are no longer agreeable to the revised proposal from the Square Shop and Flat Owners’ Association represented by Mr Naik. He states that the objection to this revised proposal is as fundamental as it is serious. KK Builders had consented to an earlier proposal but it now believes that the basis of that proposal has been materially altered. The details of this objection have not yet been provided to the attorneys for the Association, and Mr Naik who appears for the Association today has not yet had an opportunity to consider it.
2. Mr Halli will place the objection in a further Affidavit and
serve copies on the Advocates for the Association and the Petitioner on or before 18th March 2019.
3. Presently, list the matter for directions on 28th March 2019. Should Mr Naik require more time on that date or need to file a response, I will pass appropriate directions then.
4. Mr Murarka for the Petitioner has submissions to make in regard to some of the agreements and flat purchasers. I am keeping contentions open and will hear these at an appropriate stage. I am not, however, going to accept any submission across the bar that the Petitioning Creditor should be allowed to take over project completion Mr Murarka’s preference for a daintier phrase, ‘reevaluate’, will make not the slightest diference. If there is any such application it will have to be filed as a substantive Company Application and will not be considered as a statement across the bar. The Petitioning Creditor is an unsecured creditor and has no right
Page 2 of 3 4th March 2019
11-CA13-18.DOC
in any particular asset or project in specie. If there is a proposal the Petitioning Creditor wishes to make for a resolution of disputes, the Petitioner must follow an appropriate procedure.
5. All other applications are kept pending and will be taken up at the appropriate time.
6. List the matter on 28th March 2019.
(G. S. PATEL, J)
Page 3 of 3 4th March 2019
The Square Shop & Flat Owners Associates
Mantri Reality Ltd
KK Builders
G.S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
19 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
