Disposed

Vinkem Labs Ltd., v. Bank of India

Madras HC27 Apr 2016WP/9610/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs respondents to consider the petitioner's further representation dated 10.03.2016 regarding a request for financial audits and corporate debt restructuring, within three weeks, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's further representation dated 10.03.2016 and pass appropriate orders within three weeks.

Vinkem Labs Ltd., Vs Bank of India — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.9610 of 2016 And W.M.P.No.8643 of 2016

¶6

Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director Mr.M.Perumal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Bank of India, Chennai Mid Corporate Branch, 4^th Floor, 'Tarapore Towers', 826, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶7

2.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) Tamilnadu Regional Office, No.48, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Post Box No.6074, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct Financial Audit and Valuation Audit of the petitioner including its Intellectual Properties by a nominated international agency and thereupon refer the case of the petitioner for Corporate Debt Restructuring promulgated by Reserve Bank of India.

¶10

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶11

2.The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct Financial Audit and Valuation Audit of the petitioner including its Intellectual

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

Properties by a nominated inter-national agency and thereupon refer the case of the petitioner for Corporate Debt Restructuring promulgated by Reserve Bank of India.

¶14

3.Though very many contentions have been raised in this petition, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given further representation dated 10.03.2016 and it would be suffice if this Court directs the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶15

4.Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶16

5.Considering the submissions made on either side and without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents to consider the further representation of the petitioner dated 10.03.2016 on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.

¶17

6.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

pri To

¶22

1.Bank of India,

¶23

Chennai Mid Corporate Branch,

¶24

4^th Floor, 'Tarapore Towers',

¶25

826, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶26

2.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) Tamilnadu Regional Office,

¶27

No.48, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

¶28

Post Box No.6074, Nungambakkam,

¶29

Chennai – 600 034. +2 ccs to M/s.S.Sathiyanarayana, Advocate, sr.26267

¶30

W.P.No.9610 of 2016 And W.M.P.No.8643 of 2016

¶31

ak co, kra 02.05.2016

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Vinkem Labs Ltd., v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinkem Labs Ltd., v. Bank of India

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

J.Myvanna Kumar, Vs The Commissioner

Mr. Tulukanam Naicker Vs The Sub Registrar

Mr. P. Usha Vs Protector General of Emigrants

Mr.R.v.Deenadayalan, Vs The Sub Registrar

T.N.Prakash, Vs The Union of India

Avichi College of Arts & Vs The Secretary to Government