Allowed

The Official Liquidator v. M/S.Gulf Waves Trading East

Madras HC14 Jun 2024COMP.A/1885/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a company application filed by the Deputy Official Liquidator for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs.18,59,757/- and interest against a respondent firm, which had refused to settle the debt confirmed in the Statement of Affairs despite a demand notice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent firm to pay outstanding amount of Rs.18,59,757/- with interest at 18% p.a. and costs to be met from company funds.

The Official Liquidator Vs M/S.Gulf Waves Trading East — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Comp.A.No.1885 of 2010 in C.P.No.365 of 1997

¶2

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.,

¶3

This Company Application is filed seeking the following prayer:

¶4

“i) To direct the respondent firm to pay outstanding

¶5

amount of Rs.18,59,757/- together with interest @

¶6

18% p.a., from the last date of transaction i.e., 01.04.1996 to till the date of entire settlement.

¶7

ii) To direct that the cost of this application do come

¶8

out of the funds of the company in liquidation.”

¶9

2. Ms.B.Ambili, Deputy Official Liquidator submitted that the

¶10

winding up order has been passed by this Court on 07.04.2000. Thereafter, the Ex-Directors of the company in liquidation have filed their Statement of Affairs along with the list of debtors, wherein the respondent has shown as debtor and

¶11

they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.18,59,757/-. Pursuant to which, the Official

¶12

Liquidator has issued a demand notice dated 12.01.2005 to the debtor/respondent calling upon them to settle the said due amount. Even after

¶13

the receipt of such demand notice, the respondent have not have forward to

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

settle the due amount.

¶17

3. Though the notice was ordered by this Court to the respondent on

¶18

24.04.2018, the same was returned with an endorsement “Unclaimed”. It appears that the respondent has deliberately refused to accept the notice. Thus, it shows that the respondent is not interested to contest the case.

¶19

4. Considering the submission made by the Deputy Official Liquidator and perused the material available on record, it appears that the respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.18,59,757/- and the Deputy Official Liquidator also proved the same. Accordingly, the Company Application is allowed.

¶20

14.06.2024

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

2/3

¶24

Krishnan Ramasamy, J., jd

¶25

Comp.A.No.1885 of 2010 in C.P.No.365 of 1997

¶26

14.06.2024

¶27

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

¶28

3/3

The Official Liquidator v. M/S.Gulf Waves Trading East

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Official Liquidator v. M/S.Gulf Waves Trading East

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

Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ntc Supply Chain Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

The Official Liquidator Vs M/s Rhombus Films-Loan a/c

Rishi Ad Promoters Vs The Managing Director

The Official Liquidator Vs M/s.Safintra Roofing (India)

The Official Liquidator, High Court Madras as the Provisional Liquidator Vs M/s.Punjab National Bank, Rep.by its Chief Manager

The Official Liquidator, Vs T.R.Viswanathan