Dismissed

Tayal Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC15 Feb 2016CO.APP./2/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed the appeal against vacation of interim orders restraining asset transfer in winding up proceedings. The court held that prior to a winding-up order, such discretion is not prejudicial to the appellant's rights regarding interest or principal claims, which remain open. The appeal is dismissed with observations.

What did the court decide?

The appellant's appeal against vacation of interim orders admitted with observations.

Tayal Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Three C Homes Pvt… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CO.APP. 2/2016, CM APPL.5354-5345/2016

¶4

TAYAL FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

THREE C HOMES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 15.02.2016

¶11

The appellant’s grievance is that the observations in the impugned order prejudiced him vis-a-vis the merits of the petition specially his claim for return of the principal amount with appropriate interest given the nature of the delay.

¶12

The appeal is directed against an order dated 23.12.2015 whereby the previous interim orders, restraining the respondent’s company from transferring its assets etc. in the course of the winding up proceedings were vacated. Learned Single Judge appears to have been influenced by the fact that the company offered to pay the entire principal due and a token amount of Rs. one lac over and above that - which was not acceptable to the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Aggarwal, Advocate contends that the decisions of the

¶14

Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court have consistently ruled that in such circumstances, at least, 12% interest ought to be paid and that secondly the observations are culminated in the vacation of the interim order thereby prejudicing the appellant.

¶15

This Court is of the opinion that the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge in a proceeding which had not led to issuance of a winding up order, were purely discretionary. The interim order does not in any manner indicate or settle the rights of the appellant in such manner as to prejudice him in the course of further proceedings. A

¶16

This Court is of the opinion that the appellant is at liberty to urge all contentions available to him in law with respect to the appropriate interest, applicable in such cases.

¶17

The appeal is dismissed but with the above observations.

¶18

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶19

DEEPA SHARMA, J

¶20

FEBRUARY 15, 2016 / vikas /

Tayal Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tayal Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Three C Homes Pvt. 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

Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shivji Lal Vs Delhi Vidyut Board

B.L.Bishnoi & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Samarth Shiksha Samiti (Regd) & Anr. Vs Joginder Sachdeva & Ors.

Ranjeet Singh Manhas & Anr. Vs Harjinder Pal Singh & Anr.

Ranjeet Singh Manhas & Anr. Vs Sunil Gupta & Anr.