Allowed

V.v.Janardhanan v. M/S Sudersan . Chis (India) Ltd.

Kerala HC2 Mar 2023Co.Appl./22/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed company applications to condone delay and set aside an ex parte judgment against the applicants due to the Official Liquidator's lack of objection, while also permitting the judgment debtor time to pay the debt in instalments.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 568 days was condoned; ex parte judgment was set aside; debt was directed to be paid in three equal monthly instalments; revenue recovery proceedings were stayed.

V.v.Janardhanan Vs M/S Sudersan . Chis (India) Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM (Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

In the matter of the Companies Act, 1956

¶3

and

¶4

In the matter of Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. (In liquidation)

¶5

Co.Appl. Nos.26, 22 & 25/2023 in C.C.No.34/2014 in C.P. No.9/1981

¶6

Before:

¶7

The Honourable Mr.Justice AMIT RAWAL

¶8

Thursday, the 2^nd day of March, 2023/11^th Phalguna, 1944

¶9

¶10

Applicants/Respondents in Company Claim:-

¶11

V.V.Janardhanan, S/o.Kannan, Vadakkenmarveettil, Chittady P.O., Alakode, Kannur – 678 706. (Principal Debtor)

¶12

Smt.Komalavally N.P., W/o.Janardhanan, Vadakkenmarveettil, Chittady P.O., Alakode, Kannur – 678 706.(surety)

¶13

Rajesh K.V., S/o.Kannan, Kattuveetiyil House, Chittady P.O., Alakode, Kannur – 678 706. (surety)

¶14

Mathew C.J., S/o.Chacko, Choorenolil House, Therthally P.O., Kannur – 670 571. (surety)

¶15

Respondents/Claimant in the Company Claim:-

¶16

M/s.Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd., Represented by the Official Liquidator, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam – 682 031.

¶17

Deputy Tahsildar, Thaliparamb Taluk, Kannur District – 670 571.

¶18

Co.Appl. No.26/2023 in C.C.No.34/2014 in C.P. No.9/1981

¶19

Company Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act r/w Rule 9 of the Companies Court Rules 1959 filed by the applicants above named praying for an order to condone the delay of 568 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CC No.34 of 2014 in C.P.No.9 of 1981.

¶20

Contd..........2

¶21

Co.Appl. Nos.26, 22 & 25/2023 in C.C.No.34/2014 in C.P. No.9/1981

¶22

¶23

Co.Appl. No.22/2023 in C.C.No.34/2014 in C.P. No.9/1981

¶24

Company Application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the applicants above named praying for an order to set aside the exparte judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CC No.34 of 2014 in C.P.No.9 of 1981.

¶25

Co.Appl. No.25/2023 in C.C.No.34/2014 in C.P. No.9/1981

¶26

Company Application under Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules 1959 filed by the applicants above named praying for an order to stay all further proceedings by the 2^nd respondent pursuant to Annexure III demand notice dated 22.02.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent till the disposal of the Company Application filed by for setting aside the exparte judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CC No.34 of 2014 in C.P.No.9 of 1981.

¶27

These Company Applications coming on for orders on this day upon hearing Sri.K.Ravikumar, Advocate for the Applicants and Smt.S.Jasmine, Standing Counsel for the Official Liquidator and Sri. Jimmy George (Thadathil), Government Pleader for Respondent No. 2, the Court passed the following:-

¶28

Co.Appl. Nos.26, 22 & 25/2023 in C.C.No.34/2014 in C.P. No.9/1981

¶29

¶30

AMIT RAWAL, J.

¶31

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

¶32

Co.Appl.Nos.26, 22 and 25 of 2023

CC No.34 of 2014

in C.P.No.9 of 1981

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

¶37

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2023

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

Co.Appl.No.22. Of 2023 is filed for setting aside the ex

¶40

parte judgment dated 20.06.2019, along with the application for condonation of delay and application for stay.

¶41

Learned counsel representing the Official Liquidator

¶42

submits that she has no objection in case the application seeking condonation of delay for setting aside the ex parte decree is allowed. For the reason stated in the application accompanied by an affidavit, delay of 568 is condoned. Co.Appl.No.26 of 2023 is allowed.

¶43

It is also submitted by the counsel for OL that there is no objection in setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 20.6.2019. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, Co.Appl.No.22 of 2023 is allowed.

¶44

Co.Appl. Nos.26, 22 & 25/2023 in C.C.No.34/2014 in C.P. No.9/1981

¶45

¶46

Co.Appl.No.25 of 2023 is closed.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent- judgment debtor submits that his client is not keeping well and seeks for two months time to pay off the liability of Rs.25,389/-. Aforesaid amount is directed to be paid in three equal monthly instalments commencing from 06.03.2023. In the meantime, revenue recovery proceedings are ordered to be kept in abeyance. In case the first instalment is not paid by the date fixed, the revenue recovery proceedings will automatically come into operation.

¶48

Post on 07.06.2023.

¶49

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE

¶50

naksa

V.v.Janardhanan v. M/S Sudersan . Chis (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.v.Janardhanan v. M/S Sudersan . Chis (India) 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

Vidyodaya Trust(Regd) Vs Official Liquidator

M.v.Dinesh Vs State of Kerala and Others

M/S.Cherukulathu Agencies Vs State of Kerala

V.v.Janardhanan Vs M/S Sudarsan Chis (India) Ltd.

V.v.Janardhanan Vs M/S Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd.

Haridas Vs Competent Authority,Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators