Disposed

Nazo Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India through Dy. Chief Engineer - Applicants

Bombay HC6 Dec 2022IA/5109/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of two interim applications regarding property acquisition under the Central Railway. Permission was granted earlier to initiate acquisition under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court held that the title issue remains undetermined and permitted the applicant to seek impleadment in subsequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to applicant to be impleaded in resultant proceedings initiated pursuant to Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Nazo Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India through Dy… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

12-ial-32047-2022.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.32047 OF 2022 IN

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2022

¶5

M/s. Nazo Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant In the matter between

¶6

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶7

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2022.12.07 14:32:51 +0530

Union of India

Ori. Applicant

vs.

The Official Liquidator of Swadeshi Mills Co. Limited (In Liqn.) ...Respondent

¶12

WITH

¶13

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR ‘S REPORT NO.56 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

COMPANY PETITION NO.385 OF 2002

¶16

WITH

¶17

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3663 OF 2022 WITH

¶18

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.29439 OF 2021

¶19

Mr. Jayesh Joshi, for the Applicant.

¶20

Mr. Dheea Sampat i/b. Mr. T.J. Pandian, for Respondent No.1-UOI. Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir i/b. Piyush Deshpande, for the Applicant IAL No. 29439 of 2021 for Respondent No. 2.

¶21

Dr. Viraj Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. S.A.K. Najam-EsSani, Ms. Pooja Shah, Mr. Saichiranjeevi i/b. Maneksha & Sethna, for Respondent No. 3.

¶22

Mr. Amir Arsiwala a/w. Ms. Farzeen Pardiwalla, for the Respondent No. 4.

¶23

Mr. Aditya Pimple, for the Official Liquidator.

¶24

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : DECEMBER 06, 2022

¶25

P.C.:

¶26

IA.No. 32047 of 2022 :-

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant

¶28

This application is taken out seeking impleadment in Interim

¶29

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶30

...1

¶31

12-ial-32047-2022.doc

¶32

Application No. 237 of 2022 which came to be disposed of by this Court by an order dated 5^th January, 2022.

¶33

By the said order this Court granted permission to Union of India through Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Central Railway, Dadar under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 to initiate the process of acquisition of the properties which are sated to be the properties of the company in liquidation.

¶34

Since this Court has only granted the permission to initiate the process for acquisition, no issue as to title of the properties proposed to be acquired can be said to have been determined.

¶35

The applicant is at liberty to get itself impleaded in the resultant proceedings which the applicant in Interim Application No. 237 of 2022 may initiate.

¶36

Keeping open all the rights and contentions of the applicant to avail the remedies which are available in law, the Interim Application (L) No. 32047 of 2022 stands disposed.

¶37

IA.No.3663 of 2022:-

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

The learned counsel for respondent supports the prayer in the application.

¶40

Mr. Ardeshir, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits

¶41

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶42

...2

¶43

12-ial-32047-2022.doc

¶44

that respondent-Union of India does not propose to oppose the application. However, the learned counsel seeks time to file affidavit in the application as well as in Official Liquidator’s Report No. 56 of 2022.

¶45

List on 14^th December, 2022.

¶46

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶47

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶48

...3

Nazo Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India through Dy. Chief Engineer - Applicants

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazo Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India through Dy. Chief Engineer - Applicants

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

Tushar Tukaram Doke vs Manik Tukaram Doke (Deceased)

Copper Chimney Pvt. Ltd. Vs Speciality Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Prime Securities Limited Vs the Custodian

Sembcorp Marine Repairs and Upgrade Pte. Ltd. Vs M. v. Karnika (Imo No. 8521220)

Atmosphere Realty Private Limited Vs Dilip Mangilal Jain

Sembcorp Marine Repairs and Upgrade Pte. Ltd. Vs M. v. Karnika (Imo No. 8521220)