Dismissed

Steel Authority of India Limited v. Official Liquidator(Liquidator Attached to the High Court of Gujrat Abad for Gujrat Steel Tubes

Gujarat HC2 May 2018COMA/15/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ahmedabad rejected an application seeking permission to continue suit proceedings in Commercial Court. The suit had already been disposed of by the lower court with liberty to file a claim with the Official Liquidator under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, rendering further proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The application for permission to continue suit proceedings was rejected; no further order required.

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs Official… — Company and Corporate | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/COMA/15/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 15 of 2018 In COMPANY PETITION NO. 7 of 2001

¶3

==========================================================

¶4

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

¶5

Versus

¶6

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR(LIQUIDATOR ATTACHED TO THE HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT ABAD FOR GUJRAT STEEL TUBES

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR NIKUL K SONI(5122) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR(16) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI

¶12

Date : 02/05/2018 ORAL ORDER

¶13

The present application is filed seeking permission to continue with the suit proceedings being Commercial Suit No.85 of 2016 (Summary Civil Suit No.3006 of 1997) filed in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad which was later on transferred to the Commercial Court, Ahmedabad.

¶14

With the present application, the applicant has annexed the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by learned Judge of the Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below Exh.55, whereby, learned Judged has disposed of the suit with liberty to the applicant – the original plaintiff to pursue necessary proceedings for its claim by following due process of law. Such order made by learned Judge is on the premise that the applicant – the original plaintiff has initiated the legal remedy by way of lodging its claim before the Official Liquidator and in absence of any leave / permission from this Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”), the suit is required to be disposed of with liberty to the plaintiff to pursue necessary proceedings for its claim before the Official Liquidator.

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

C/COMA/15/2018 ORDER

¶17

Section 446 of the Act provides for obtaining leave from this Court before the commencement of any suit or any proceedings against the company or to proceed with the suit or any proceeding against the company, if such suit or the proceeding is pending at the date of winding up order.

¶18

As stated above, the suit of the applicant was already disposed of by the concerned Commercial Court. In view of the above, there is no question of considering the prayer made in the present application.

¶19

The Official Liquidator has filed report in the present application stating that the applicant is also at liberty to file claim before the Official Liquidator and such claim if received, the Official Liquidator may verify the same through the Chartered Accountant and its entitlement on its claim for disbursement of the amount shall be as provided under Section 530 of the Act and subject to availability of the funds in the account of the company in liquidation.

¶20

As observed by the Commercial Court in its order dated 21.12.2017, the applicant has already lodged its claim before the Official Liquidator. If the applicant has already lodged its claim before the Official Liquidator, the Official Liquidator shall decide the same in accordance with law. However, if by now, the Official Liquidator has not received the claim from the applicant, it will remain open to the applicant to lodge its claim before the Official Liquidator.

¶21

In view of the above, no further order is required in the matter. The application is rejected.

¶22

(C.L. SONI, J)

¶23

GUPTA*

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Steel Authority of India Limited v. Official Liquidator(Liquidator Attached to the High Court of Gujrat Abad for Gujrat Steel Tubes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Steel Authority of India Limited v. Official Liquidator(Liquidator Attached to the High Court of Gujrat Abad for Gujrat Steel Tubes

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

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ramilaben Kishanbhai Vadi

Vinayakrao Shantilal Desai Vs .

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sukhiben @ Sukaliben Wd/O Bhalabhai Baria

Official Liquidator of M/S Tai Chongbang Ind. Ltd. Vs Dena Bank

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kesharsinh Mohobaatsinh Rathod

Iberchem India Limited an India Non Government Company Vs Elegant Fragrances and Flavors Private Limited