Disposed

Mr.K.Thiruvengaddam, v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, madras

Madras HC13 Dec 2024COMP.A/82/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of Company Application No.82 of 2021 by recording a Memorandum of Compromise dated 20.09.2024 between the applicants and the second respondent, setting aside the application to set aside a sale executed by the Official Liquidator.

What did the court decide?

disposal of the application by recording a Memorandum of Compromise between the applicants and the second respondent.

Mr.K.Thiruvengaddam, Vs The Official Liquidator… — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Comp.A.No.82 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Company Application No.82 of 2021 in

¶7

C.P.No.130 of 1999

¶8

1.K.Thiruvengaddam 2.B.Manoharan 3.R.Thirumangai Alwar .. Applicants

¶9

¶10

1.The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras. Liquidator of Anubhav Plantations Ltd.

¶11

2.D.Birlla David

¶12

3.The Sub-Registrar,

¶13

Thirutani, Thiruvallur District. .. Respondents

¶14

For Applicants : Mr.J.Nithyanandan For R1 : Ms.Ambili, Dy. Official Liquidator For R2 : Dr.C.Ravi Chandran For R3 : Dr.S.Suriya, AGP

¶15

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

1/4

Comp.A.No.82 of 2021

ORDER

A Memorandum of Compromise (MoC) dated 20.09.2024 has

¶20

been entered into between the contesting parties in this application, namely, the applicant and the second respondent. Eventhough in the MoC the respondents 3 to 14 are shown as party respondents, those respondents were already removed as party respondents pursuant to the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by this Court. By inadvertence, the learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the respondents 3 to 14 have been disclosed in the cause title.

¶21

The applicants have filed this application seeking to set aside the

¶22

sale executed in favour of the second respondent pursuant to the court auction conducted by the Official Liquidator. Now, as seen from the MoC, the applicants have entered into a compromise with the second respondent as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the MoC dated 20.09.2024.

¶23

The learned Deputy Official Liquidator has no objection for this Court to record the compromise.

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

Comp.A.No.82 of 2021

¶27

The MoC dated 20.09.2024 has been signed by the applicants as

¶28

well as the second respondent; and counter-signed by their respective counsels.

¶29

In terms of the MoC dated 20.09.2024, this application is

¶30

disposed of. The MoC dated 20.09.2024 shall form part of this order.

¶31

13.12.2024

¶32

rkm

¶33

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

3/4

Comp.A.No.82 of 2021

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

rkm

Company Application No.82

of 2021 in

C.P.No.130 of 2013

13.12.2024

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

¶43

4/4

Mr.K.Thiruvengaddam, v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, madras

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.K.Thiruvengaddam, v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, madras

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. Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works Vs M/s. Ganga Products

M./s.Haldor Topsoe a/s. Vs Controller of Patents and Designs

M/s. Vellaisamy Thavamani Pandi Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs

The Bank of New York Mellon Vs Indowind Energy Limited

K.Thiruvengaddam Vs The Official Liquidator, High Court, madras

Prema Suryanarayanan and Another Vs Mr.S.Venkataraman and 3 Others