Disposed

Seven Star Information Technology Private Limited v. the Official Receiver, District Court, Alappuzha

Kerala HC26 Nov 2012OP(C)/3700/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to commit petitioner property to receiver custody pending insolvency court applications. It ordered status quo continuation regarding bond operations and payment obligations. Contempt proceedings were dropped upon acceptance of the advocate receiver's explanation.

What did the court decide?

Continuation of status quo for six weeks pending insolvency court decision on interim applications. Dropping of contempt proceedings. Permission to move for funds for operational expenses.

Seven Star Information Technology Private Limited Vs… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/5TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 3700 of 2012 (O)

¶6

IP.4/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. SEVEN STAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, SARASWATHY MANDIRAM, SOUTH OF STONE BRIDGE, ALAPPUZHA 688 011,

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

¶10

2. INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED CENTRE, 49/50, 12TH ROAD, MIDC, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI 400 093,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

¶13

SRI.SATHISH NINAN

¶14

SRI.ARUN THOMAS

¶15

SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN

¶16

RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

1. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA-688 001

¶18

2. SAMEER, KOTTAVALAPPIL, HOUSE NO.10/748, FORT KOCHI-682 001.

¶19

3. BIJUMON, THANGAL PURAYIDOM, ZACHARIA WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶20

4. MUHAMMAD RAFEEK, SS PALACE WARD, MULLACKAL VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶21

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU BY SMT.LILLY.K.T., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-11-2012, ALONG WITH OPC. 3853/2012 AND COC.NO.1756/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

OP(C).No. 3700 of 2012 (O)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXHIBIT P1:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE IP NO.4/09 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P2:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE IA NO.1787/2009 IN IP NO.4/2009.
EXHIBIT P3:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2009 IN IA NO.1787/2009.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE IP NO.6/2009 FILED BY 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P5:	TURE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.2.2011 IN IP NO. 6/2009.
EXHIBIT P6:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE IA NO.800/2011 IN IP NO. 6/2009 FILED BY 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P7:	TURE COPY OF THE IA NO.1312/2011 IN IP NO.6/2009 FILED BY FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8:	TURE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN IA NO.1312/2011 IN IP NO.6/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
EXHIBIT P9:	TURE COPY OF THE IA NO.688/2012 IN IP NO.6/2009 FILED BY 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN IA NO.688/2012 IN IP NO.6/2009 BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
EXHIBIT P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.775/2012 IN IP NO.6/2009 FILED BY 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P12:	TRUE COPY OF THE COUTNER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN IA NO.775/2012 IN IP NO.6/2009 BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
EXHIBIT P13:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED TO THE IST PETITIONER ON 5.11.2012 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.5.2012 IN IP NO.4/2009.
EXHIBIT P15:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO INDUSIND BANK LIMITED ALAPPUZHA.

¶28

OP(C).No. 3700 of 2012 (O)

¶29

EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE INDUSIND BANK LIMITED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/11/2012 GIVEN TO THE BANK BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE BANK DATED 12/11/2012 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶35

O.P.(C) Nos. 3700 and 3853 of 2012 & Cont. Case No.1756 of 2012

¶36

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2012

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The plea in essence in these two original petitions is for a direction to the court below not to commit the property belonging to the petitioners to the custody of a receiver appointed in insolvency proceedings. It is alleged that a tripartite agreement has been entered into between the petitioners and M/s.Silver Star Corporation belonging to the adjudged insolvent. It appears that the insolvent has 49% and the second petitioner has 51% share holding in the first petitioner company.

¶39

A detailed consideration of the claim of the

¶40

petitioners at this juncture is unnecessary in view of the pendency of two interlocutory applications in the insolvency court. They are:

¶41

i) I.A.No.1312/2011 in I.P.6/2009 filed by the official receiver seeking inter alia to set aside the tripartite agreement dated 10.4.2008.

¶42

O.P.(C) Nos.3700 & 3853/2012 & COC.No.1756/2012

¶43

¶44

ii) I.A.No.688/2012 in I.P.No.6/2009 filed by the petitioners in the insolvency petition for a direction to the official receiver to auction 49% of the shares of the insolvent in public auction.

¶45

The question whether the tripartite agreement executed between the parties is genuine and valid is yet to be considered by the court below. Similarly the question whether permission could be granted to sell 49% shares of the insolvent is also yet to be considered by the court below. The petitioners are also at liberty to prefer a separate interlocutory application in the insolvency court under Section 72 of the Insolvency Act. I hasten to add that all questions can be considered by the insolvency court itself and the order so passed is appealable under Section 79 of the Insolvency Act.

¶46

It is conceded that the Advocate Receiver has already taken custody of the property and has permitted the first petitioner to continue to operate the cable TV network under her ofcourse with liability to account. The same status quo shall continue till I.A.Nos.1312/2011 and 688/2012 and the

¶47

¶48

O.P.(C) Nos.3700 & 3853/2012 & COC.No.1756/2012

¶49

application to be preferred by the petitioners are considered by the insolvency court within a period of six weeks from today. It is brought to my notice that payment of salary to the staff of the cable TV network as well as remittance to the pay channels for broadcast cannot brooke any delay. I permit the petitioners to move appropriate application in the insolvency court for release of the amount to them for the purpose mentioned and orders shall be passed, if possible, on the date of motion itself.

¶50

I accept the explanation offered by the Advocate Receiver in the counter affidavit filed by her and drop the Contempt of Court proceedings initiated alleging violation of the interim order in the original petitions.

¶51

The original petitions and the Contempt case are disposed of as above.

¶52

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶53

nj.

Seven Star Information Technology Private Limited v. the Official Receiver, District Court, Alappuzha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seven Star Information Technology Private Limited v. the Official Receiver, District Court, Alappuzha

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

B.Prabhuram and Another Vs Joseph and Others

Saji Vs v.E.Alex

Amruthavally Vs C.Sarojini Amma

Daisy Mathew Vs Johnson Mathews

Divakaran Vs Parameswaran

K.S.Simon Vs Sajeev Mathew Joseph