Allowed

Nainesh Jayantilal Sanghvi v. Skm Steels Limited and Ors.

Bombay HC11 May 2023APL/488/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged an order dismissing an application under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for a stay of proceedings. The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate without giving reasons was invalid and quashed it, remanding the matter.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 2nd February, 2023, rejecting the application under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is quashed. The Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to issue notice and pass

Nainesh Jayantilal Sanghvi Vs Skm Steels Limited… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

12-apl-488-23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.488 OF 2023

¶4

Nainesh Jayantilal Sanghvi ...Applicant Versus SKM Steels Limited & Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. R. S Tripathi a/w Mr. Chacko Joseph a/w Ms. Sneha P. Sonawane , for the Applicant. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar , APP for Respondent No.3-State.

¶6

¶7

CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J VACATION COURT

¶8

DATED: 11^th May, 2023

¶9

PC:-

¶10

This Criminal Application is filed challenging the order dated

¶11

2^nd February, 2023 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6^th Court Mazgaon, Sewree, Mumbai in the summons case i.e. C.C. No. SS/601648/2017 for quashing and setting aside the same.

¶12

The Applicant has today filed an affidavit of service which

¶13

states that the clerk employed with the Advocate for the Applicant

¶14

SA Pathan 1/4

¶15

12-apl-488-23.doc

¶16

on instructions has sent a copy of the Petition addressed to the original Complainant on 21^st April, 2023 by speed post and the track report shows that the same was served on the original Complainant on 24^th April, 2023. So also a copy was served by email to the original Complainant. The said affidavit further shows that as far as today’s hearing is concerned. By an email the original complainant was informed that the matter will be on today’s board for urgent hearing.

¶17

Nobody appears for the Complainant/Respondent No.1 even though they have been served.

¶18

The Applicant (Accused No.2) had preferred an Application (Exhibit – 220) before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6^th Court Mazgaon, Sewree, Mumbai. The said Application was tilted as the Application under Section 96 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for stay of proceedings against Accused No.2. The said Application specifically mentioned about the provisions of Section 94, 95 and 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The

¶19

SA Pathan 2/4

¶20

12-apl-488-23.doc

¶21

said Application sought a relief that there should be stay to the proceedings against the Accused No.2 i.e. the present Applicant. The said Application was preferred on 4^th March, 2022. The original Complainant opposed to the Application and filed a say.

¶22

Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6^th Court Mazgaon, Sewree, Mumbai by his order dated 2^nd February, 2023 simpliciter rejected the Application with cost of Rs.3000/-. No reasons were given by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6^th Court Mazgaon, Sewree, Mumbai as to why the Application has been rejected.

¶23

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6^th Court Mazgaon, Sewree, Mumbai should have at least given reasons why the Application is not maintainable and the reasons for rejecting the Application. In view of the same the order dated 2^nd February, 2023 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6^th Court Mazgaon, Sewree, Mumbai in the summons case i.e. C.C. No. SS/601648/2017, is hereby quashed and set aside. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6^th Court Mazgaon, Sewree, Mumbai is

¶24

SA Pathan 3/4

¶25

12-apl-488-23.doc

¶26

hereby directed to hear the Applicant (original Accused No.2) and the Complainant on Application (Exhibit – 220) and, thereafter pass an appropriate reasoned order according to the provisions of law.

¶27

Accordingly, the Criminal Application No.488 of 2023 is disposed of as allowed.

¶28

(RAJESH S. PATIL,J.)

¶29

SA Pathan 4/4

Nainesh Jayantilal Sanghvi v. Skm Steels Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nainesh Jayantilal Sanghvi v. Skm Steels Limited and Ors.

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

Nilesh Pandit Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samina @ Tabbo Anvar Ansari Vs State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Jalil Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Alok Kumar Satish Upadhyay Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nasreen Abdul Razzaq Qadri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nityanand Lingayya @ L Nityanand Vs the State of Maharashtra