Dismissed

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Skyline Construction and Housing Private

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2021COP/215/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this company petition filed under the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petition after the petitioner submitted that the dispute was amicably settled. The court reserved liberty to revive proceedings if settlement terms were breached.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty to revive proceedings if settlement terms are not adhered to is reserved.

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs M/S Skyline… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021 BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO.215/2012

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Having its registered office at 36-38A, Nariman Bhavan, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Represented by its Chief Manager-Legal (Commercial Real Estate) Mr.Nilesh Ravindranath Singh. Having a Branch office at 10/7, 3^rd Floor, Umiya Landmark, Lavelle Road, Bangalore-560001. … Petitioner (By Sri.Sankeerth Vittal, Advocate for Sri.Pradeep Nayak, Advocate)

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s.Skyline Constrtuction and Housing Private Limited Having its registered Office at No.11, Hayes Road Bangalore-560025. Represented by its Managing Director. ...Respondent (By Sri. H.N.Narendra Dev, Advocate for M/s.NDS Law Partners)

¶10

¶11

This Company Petition is filed under Section 433 (e) read with Section 434 (1)(a) and Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying to directing the respondent company, M/s.Skyline construction and Housing Private Limited, be wound up under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and etc.,

¶12

This Company Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo and submits that parties have settled their dispute amicably.

¶15

2. The memo reads as hereunder:

¶16

It is submitted that pursuant to discussions between the representatives of the petitioner and the respondent, the parties have amicably settled their disputes. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the leave of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the above proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶17

The petitioner seeks the leave of this Hon’ble Court to revive the present proceedings and seek appropriate orders in the event the respondent fails to adhere to the terms of settlement executed between the parties.

¶18

¶19

3. In light of the memo filed and submission

¶20

made, petition is dismissed .

¶21

Liberty as sought for to seek for revival in the event of terms of settlement are not adhered to is reserved.

¶22

Sd/JUDGE

¶23

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Skyline Construction and Housing Private

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Skyline Construction and Housing Private

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. (in Liqn.) Vs Nil

M/S. Deccan Cargo and Express Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqn.) Vs Nil

M/S Cosmos Watch Industries Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil

M/S. Skyline Construction and Housing Private Limited Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs M/S Skyline Construction and Housing Private

M/S. Skyline Construction and Housing Private Limited Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.