Dismissed

Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Madras HC1 Dec 2022WP/19718/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd seeking forbearance from proceedings declaring it a willful defaulter. The court held the petition infructuous given that proceedings were already initiated and the company had been liquidated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.19718 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.6845 of 2017 &

¶7

M.P.No.1of 2009

¶8

Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd Habib Complex, 2^nd floor No.5 Durgabai Deshmuk road R.A.Puram Chennai-600 028 Rep by its Company Secretary M.Rathinakumar

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd 7^th floor, Dani Corporate Bank No.158, C.S.T.Road Kalina, Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 098

¶12

2.Reserve Bank of India Fort Glacis Rajaji Salai Chennai-600 001

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent from

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

W.P.No.19718 of 2009

¶18

proceeding with the proceedings against the petitioner on 25^th September 2009 or on any subsequent date, to declare the petitioner as a willful defaulter as the proceedings are vitiated by fraud and are not held in accordance with the norms prescribed by the second respondent viz., the Reserve Bank of India.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Prakash Goklaney

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.H.Karthik Seshadri for

¶21

M/s. Iyer and Thomas for R1

¶22

Mr.C.Mohan for

¶23

M/s. King & Patridge for R2

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Writ petition is filed seeking to forbear the first respondent from proceeding with the proceedings against the petitioner on 25^th September 2009 or on any subsequent date, to declare the petitioner as a willful defaulter as the proceedings are vitiated by fraud and are not held in accordance with the norms prescribed by the second respondent viz., the Reserve Bank of India.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶27

_________ Page 2 of 4_

¶28

W.P.No.19718 of 2009

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that

¶30

already proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner and recovery certificate also issued against the petitioner and the petitioner company is also liquidated, which is not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶31

In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed as

¶32

infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

01.12.2022

¶34

kpr

¶35

To Reserve Bank of India Fort Glacis Rajaji Salai Chennai-600 001

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶37

_________ Page 3 of 4_

¶38

W.P.No.19718 of 2009

¶39

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶40

kpr

¶41

W.P.No.19718 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶42

01.12.2022

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶44

_________ Page 4 of 4_

Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

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

P.Kumar @ Parkunan Vs Union Territory of Pondicherry

Sundaram Finance Limited Vs Bhola Singh

P. Gopal Reddy Vs the District Collector

Mr. G. Shankar Vs The Deputy Director/Principal

C.Thiruvengadam, Vs the Manager

C.Subramani Vs the General Manager