Disposed

M/s Explopack v. M/s Navbharat Explosive Company Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC22 Oct 2018COMA/1/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed two company appeals. Mediation in underlying winding up petitions resulted in the respondent company admitting the debt and depositing the amount via demand draft. The court left payment of interest to the parties. Both appeals were disposed.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were disposed off as the underlying dispute regarding the principal amount was settled via deposit of demand draft by the respondent.

M/s Explopack Vs M/s Navbharat Explosive Company… — Company and Corporate | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

COMA No. 1 of 2015

¶5

M/s Explopack A Partnership Firm, Duly Registered Under The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 And Having Its Office, Inter Alia, At B-4, M I D C Hingna Road, Nagpur And Represented By Its Constituted Attorney Shri Uday, S/o Shri Madhukar Lehgaonkar, Aged About 40 Years, Profession Service, R/o Plot No. 93, Shivaji Colony, Behind Nasrae Mangal Karyalaya, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur - 34

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Navbharat Explosive Company Ltd. A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Relevant Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At Navbharat Udyog Bhawan, Telibandha, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

COMA No. 2 of 2015

---- Appellant

Versus

M/s Navbharat Fuse Company Ltd. A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Relevant Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At Navbharat Udyog Bhawan, Telibandha, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

For Appellant : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

Judgment on Board

¶19

22/10/2018

¶20

Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice

¶21

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

2. Looking at the nature of the dispute which led to filing of the Company

¶23

Petition Nos.4/2012 and 5/2012 for winding up which has the background of non-

¶24

¶25

settlement of certain dues/claims which the Appellants had raised against the Respondent-Company.

¶26

3. When the matter was earlier heard on 16.07.2018, the Court appointed a trained Mediator to explore the possibility of settlement and allowed services of a Chartered Accountant to go through the book of accounts and find a common ground for resolution.

¶27

4. Even though the petition has been filed showing that the mediation as such has failed, but the Court still finds success in the said exercise because the Respondent-Company agrees that a sum of Rs.66,33,188/- is payable to the Appellant and in this regard, a Demand Draft No.808112 of the said amount dated 05.10.2018 drawn on State Bank of India, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur has not only been produced before this Court, but handed over to Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel representing the Appellant.

¶28

5. Keeping in mind the said development, these appeals can be disposed off putting to rest issue in relation to winding up of the Company in question.

¶29

6. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel representing the Appellants submits that there has been long delay in settlement of the claims, the Appellants have suffered and he will be entitled to payment of interest on his rightful claim.

¶30

7. To the contrary, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondent-Company that he also has certain legitimate claims against the Appellant and therefore, the demand for payment of interest cannot be accepted unilaterally.

¶31

8. Keeping in mind that the major issue with regard to the payable amount between the two parties stands settled, for which, this Court records its appreciation and the gesture shown by the Respondent-Company, the parties can now either negotiate amongst themselves or if they still want to carry on the

¶32

¶33

litigation for payment of interest or counter claim minus any winding up proceeding in this regard, the Court will not come in the way.

¶34

9. Both the appeals stand disposed off in view of the above.

¶35

Sd/Sd/(Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

¶36

Yogesh

M/s Explopack v. M/s Navbharat Explosive Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Explopack v. M/s Navbharat Explosive Company Ltd.

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

Ravindera Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Raipur Vs Heliwal Polypackers Pvt. Ltd.

Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. Vs Union Of India

Devendra Kokje Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Ram Kumar Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

B.L.Gangber Vs Union of India