Allowed

M/S.Ojala (India) Engg. v. M/S.Water Front Pier Hotel

Madras HC12 Jul 2016CP/104/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a winding up petition and a related application after the respondent company proved payment via three cheques as a full settlement. The petitioner was granted liberty to revive the petition if the cheques are not honoured.

What did the court decide?

Company petition and application disposed of with liberty to petitioner to revive petition if cheques are not honoured.

M/S.Ojala (India) Engg. Vs M/S.Water Front Pier Hotel — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 12.07.2016

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶6

C.P.No.104 of 2013 and Comp.A.No.347 of 2013

¶7

M/S.Ojala (India) Engineering Private Limited C-30, Sipcot Industrial Park Irungattukottai, Katrambakkam Village Sriperumbudur Taluk Kancheepuram District Tamilnadu 602015.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

¶10

M/S.Water Front Pier Hotel Private Limited Pioneer Regency Towers No.132 (Old No.33) Nelson Manickam Road Chennai-600 029.

¶11

.. Respondent

¶12

Petition filed under Sections 433(1)(e), 434(1)(a) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, prays (a) that the respondent company, namely M/S. Water Front Pier Hotel Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at pioneer regency Towers, No.132 (old No.33), Nelson Manickam Road,

¶13

¶14

Chennai-600 029, be ordered to be wound up under the orders and directions of this Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; (b) that this Court may be pleased to appoint the Official Liquidator of the respondent company and to conduct the affairs of the respondent company in the course of winding up and to distribute its assets in accordance with law; (c ) that the costs of the petition and costs towards legal expenses be provided for to the petitioner;

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Juhiein Jinyabarson for Mr.A.K.Mylsamy and Associates For Respondent : Ms.M.Meenatchi for Mr.S.Vasudevan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1.Learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record the affidavit of one L.J.Singaravelan, the Director of the respondent company.

¶18

2.In this affidavit, which is dated 11.07.2016, the respondent claims that it has arrived at a settlement with the petitioner which requires payment of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- via three cheques, as full and final amount in respect of the claim raised in the petition. The details qua payment are set out in para-3 of the affidavit.

¶19

¶20

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner affirms this fact.

¶21

3.1 Counsel for the petitioner also says that the cheques referred to in para-3 of the said affidavit have been handed over to the petitioner.

¶22

4.Accordingly, the company petition is disposed of with liberty

¶23

to the petitioner to revive the petition, in case, the cheques handed over are not honoured. Consequently, pending Company Application No.347 of 2013 is also disposed of.

12.07.2016

Index:Yes/No

RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.

¶29

¶30

C.P.No.104 of 2013 and Comp.A.No.347 of 2013

¶31

12.07.2016

M/S.Ojala (India) Engg. v. M/S.Water Front Pier Hotel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Ojala (India) Engg. v. M/S.Water Front Pier Hotel

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.Cholamandalam Investment Vs Mr.Ramakrishnan.P.

M/s.Varo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s.Ti Anode Fabricators

Eta Star Bashyam Vs

Petunia Eretz Developers Pvt. Vs

G.Thiruvalluva Nainar Vs Anubhav Plantations

S.a.Miyajan Vs K.T.Shanmugam