Dismissed

M/S Guiding Force Developers(Pvt) Ltd. v. M/S Rps Infrastructure Ltd.

Delhi HC5 Aug 2011CO.PET./333/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an insolvency/winding-up petition held not maintainable because serious disputed questions of fact existed regarding alleged breaches and no admission of debt was made, stating such matters require a civil court trial.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was dismissed with a liberty to file appropriate recovery proceedings for the recovery of money.

M/S Guiding Force Developers(Pvt) Ltd. Vs M/S Rps… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.

¶2

Supplementary Collaboration Agreement dated^15th May, 2008.

¶3

Further, in reply to the statutory winding up notice, I find that respondent has alleged breach of various obligations on part of the petitioner. Not only has it been stated that petitioner has failed to remove encumbrances, but it has also been stated that petitioner has failed to obtain DTCP licence and has refused to allow the respondent to mortgage the land which in turn has caused huge monetary loss to the respondent. It has also been alleged in the reply to statutory notice that petitioner had tried to gain forcible possession of the land.

¶4

it is pertinent to mention that petitioner's suit for injunction is already pending before the Court of Ms. Bhawna Jam, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridabad. In the said suit, respondent has filed a counter claim and the trial Court after hearing both the parties, has stayed the petitioner from interfering with the suit property till disposal of the proceedings.

¶5

Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the reading the e-mail dated^29th March, 2011 holistically, this Court is of the view that serious disputed question of facts are involved in the present case and there is no admission of debt by the respondent.

¶6

It is a well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of thi

¶7

Court in winding up matters is summary in nature and it shall not

¶8

adjudicate/entertain any matter involving disputed questions of fact.

¶9

Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, present petition and

¶10

applications are not maintainable and accordingly, same ae dismissed.

¶11

However, petitioner is given liberty to file appropriate recovery proceedings.

¶12

Needless to say, the civil Court would decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made by this

¶13

Court.

¶14

IL-1 MANMOffiN,J

¶15

AUGUST 05, 2011 js

¶16

M/S Guiding Force Developers(Pvt) Ltd. v. M/S Rps Infrastructure Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Guiding Force Developers(Pvt) Ltd. v. M/S Rps Infrastructure 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

Jindal Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs ..

Aditi Bajaj Vs M/S Dlf Commercial Complexes Ltd.

S.N.S Overseas Private Ltd. Vs Cobra Indian Beer Private Ltd.

Uk Paints (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ..

Kalyani Holdings & Finance Ltd. Vs Ansal Landmark Townships(Pvt) Ltd.

Valora Trading Private Ltd. Vs ..