Dismissed

Tata Projects Limited v. Noyyal Common Effluent

Madras HC19 Jul 2016CP/303/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, seeking to wind up the respondent company for non-payment of a disputed debt, withdrew its company court petition with liberty to file further proceedings if necessary. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Denied. The winding-up petition was dismissed with liberty to move the court at an appropriate time in accordance with law.

Tata Projects Limited Vs Noyyal Common Effluent — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.07.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶6

C.P.No.303 of 2014

¶7

Tata Projects Limited, represented by its Company Secretary and Power of Attorney having registered office at Mithona Towers – 1, 1-7-80 to 87, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad – 500 003, Andhra Pradesh

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Noyyal Common Effluent Treatment Company Limited, having its Registered Office at Shop No.2, P.R. Complex, 47, Binny Compound, Main Road, Tirupur- 641 605, Tamil Nadu represented by its Managing Director

¶11

.. Respondent

¶12

¶13

Prayer : Petition under Sections 433(e), 439(1(b), 434(1)(a) and

¶14

443(1)(d) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with, Rule 11(a)(15) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to, (a) order the respondent to be wound up under the provision of the Companies Act, 1956 ; and under the orders, directions, supervision and control of this Court ; (b) order that the Official Liquidator, Madras High Court, be

¶15

¶16

appointed as Liquidator of the said respondent, i.e., Noyyal Common Effluent Treatment Company Limited, to take charge of all the assets, affairs, business, bank accounts, papers, books of accounts, vouchers, documents, properties, income with all necessary powers under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ; (c) order for award of costs-on-actual incurred by the petitioner and incidental to this petition ; and (d) pass such other and further orders as this Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Krishna Ravindran For Respondent : Mr..Vijayanarayan, Senior Counsel for M/s.P.S.Deepika

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the total

¶20

amount due to his client is a sum of Rs.8.40 Crores, which is based on an award, dated 18.09.2012.

¶21

1.1. It is stated that the award proceeds on an agreement

¶22

arrived at between the parties. Under the award, it is the say of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was required to pay a sum of Rs.8.40 Crores.

¶23

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner further says out of the said sum,

¶25

the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.3.38 Crores and has further agreed to pay the balance amount via installments at the rate of Rs.10 laksh per month.

¶26

In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner says, he has instructions to withdraw the petition and, if necessary,

¶27

to move the Court at the appropriate time in accordance with law.

¶28

Accordingly, the captioned application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed.

19.07.2016

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

¶33

¶34

C.P.No.303 of 2014

¶35

19.07.2016

Tata Projects Limited v. Noyyal Common Effluent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Projects Limited v. Noyyal Common Effluent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Vmr Textiles Private Vs

Sri Ramachandra Fuels Vs M/s.Mohan Breweries and

S.a.Miyajan Vs K.T.Shanmugam

International Asset Vs the Official Liquiator

M/S.Kotak Mahindra Banklimited Vs G.Elayarajan

Mrs.M.Sailaja Vs The Official Liquidator