Allowed

M/S.Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers (P) Ltd. v. M/s.Sumeet Machnes Limited

Madras HC10 Dec 2019A/9160/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application seeking withdrawal of ₹75,00,000/- deposited in a suit account towards decree satisfaction, the court allowed the withdrawal. The claim that the defendant company had liquidated was unproven, and the court held the plaintiff entitled as the company was active at the time of the deposit. Relief was granted.¶25

What did the court decide?

The application to withdraw the deposited sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- from the suit account for part satisfaction of the decree is allowed.

M/S.Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers (P) Ltd. Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

A.No.9160 of 2019 in C.S.No.1311 of 1994

¶2

A.No.9160 of 2019 in C.S.No.1311 of 1994

¶3

Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff.

¶5

The suit filed for recovery of money was allowed by this Court on 08.08.2019. Pending suit in the interlocutory application, this Court has directed the garnishee to deposit a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- to the credit of the suit and accordingly garnishee/State Bank of Hyderabad, Mittal Tower 'C' wing, Nariman Point, Bombay has deposited a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- to the credit of the suit. On 04.09.2018, a sum of Rs.3,14,85,979/- stands to the credit of the suit being the principal and interest approved. In the light of the decree passed by this Court on 08.08.2019, the present application is filed to withdraw the said amount to defray it against the decree.

¶6

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the date of decree the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,24,68,279.53/- along with interest at the rate of 9% for the principal amount of Rs.1,81,72,084/-.

¶7

1/4

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

A.No.9160 of 2019 in C.S.No.1311 of 1994

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that the

¶11

defendant company has been liquidated and the Official Liquidator has been appointed in the matter. The Official Liquidator is the person entitled for the

¶12

said sum deposited in the suit account. Having entered into the shoes of the

¶13

defendant, notice should go to the Official Liquidator.

¶14

When the above said submissions made before this Court on

¶15

28.11.2019, this Court adjourned the matter requesting the learned counsel

¶16

for the defendant to furnish the particulars about the Official Liquidator so

¶17

that necessary action may be taken.

¶18

Today, when the matter taken up for consideration the learned

¶19

counsel for the defendant is not able to furnish the details of the Official Liquidator. This Court is not even certain whether the defendant's company gone into liquidation. In any event, when the suit was filed in the year 1994

¶20

and the order of depositing a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- in the suit account passed by this Court, the defendant's company was active and the above interim order was passed in order to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff. The amount which is now sought to be withdrawn was credited to the account of

¶21

2/4

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

A.No.9160 of 2019 in C.S.No.1311 of 1994

¶24

the suit lying before the company went on liquidation. The plaintiff having succeeded in the suit, the plaintiff /applicant is entitled to withdraw the said sum lying in the suit account as against part satisfaction of the decree

¶25

amount. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

¶26

10.12.2019
rpl

¶27

3/4

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

A.No.9160 of 2019 in C.S.No.1311 of 1994

¶30

Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

¶31

rpl

¶32

A.No.9160 of 2019
in C.S.No.1311 of 1994

¶33

10.12.2019

¶34

4/4

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/S.Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers (P) Ltd. v. M/s.Sumeet Machnes Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers (P) Ltd. v. M/s.Sumeet Machnes Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bing Vs M/S.Sreedevi Video Corporation and 31 Others

Maurga Hotel (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs I.T.C.Limited

Relish Snacks Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. Ltd.

Maya Appliances Private Limite Vs Bajaj Electricals Ltd.

Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Vs Maya Appliances Private Limite

M/S. Maya Appliances P L Vs Elica Pb India P L