Disposed

Ms. Vanita C.Sharma v. M/S Gokaldas Images Ltd.

Karnataka HC25 Feb 2021CA/163/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a company application filed under Section 450 read with Company Rules, noting that the principal debt had been paid. Consequently, the accompanying application for appointment of a provisional liquidator was dismissed as not requiring adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Report deposited; main application disposed of; application for appointment of provisional liquidator disposed of as not requiring adjudication.

Ms. Vanita C.Sharma Vs M/S Gokaldas Images Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶5

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.163/2016

¶6

¶7

COMPANY PETITION NO.86/2016

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MS. VANITA C. SHARMA DIRECTOR, VS APPAREL INC., THE MERCHANDISE BUILDING, 155 DALHOUSIE ST., SUITE 704 TORONTO ON, M5B, 2P7

¶10

… APPLICANT (BY SRI.KUMAR RAM C M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C K NANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S GOKALDAS IMAGES LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7 AND 12 INDUSTRIAL SUBURBS 2^ND STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560022 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (By SRI.K S HARISH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

¶15

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 450 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND RULE 6 AND 9 OF THE COMPANY RULE PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.,

¶16

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The respondent has filed a memo which reads as

¶19

hereunder:-

¶20

“ MEMO REPORTING COMPLIANCE

¶21

In compliance with Order dated 13.12.2019 has paid USD 20,284.78 to the Petitioner on 28^th January 2020. The said payment was made vide Swift transfer by the Respondent from their account with Canara Bank, Bangalore into the account of Petitioner J.P.Morgan Chase Bank N A Newyork. Copy of the document evidencing the remittance of payment is attached herewith. The Respondent had earlier paid USD 14,000 on 03.01.2019.

¶22

In view of the above payment, the Respondent has paid the entire claim amount of USD 34,284.78 to the Petitioner.

¶23

Wherefore it is prayed that his Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispose the above petition as settled in the interest of justice and equity ”.

¶24

¶25

Taking note of the order dated 13.12.2019

¶26

and the submission made by the counsel for respondent, it is not in dispute that the principal amount has been paid. In the light of the same while noting that substantial payment has been made continuance of the present proceedings does not arise taking note of the nature of the present proceedings. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that there are dues from the respondent in terms of interest. Insofar as said claim is concerned, contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶27

Accordingly, petition is disposed of. In light of the disposal of the present petition, C.A.No.163/2016 for appointment of provisional liquidator is disposed of as not requiring any adjudication.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

nms

Ms. Vanita C.Sharma v. M/S Gokaldas Images Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Vanita C.Sharma v. M/S Gokaldas Images Ltd.

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

M/S Sks Hydraulics Bangalore Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Sri. B. P. Sandeep Vs Smt. K. M. Shalini

M/S Brindvan Upahara Boarding Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Ms. Latha Shivanna Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Ms. Vanita C Sharma Vs M/S Gokaldas Images Ltd.

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S Maximus Arc Pvt. Ltd.