Disposed¶43

Ramlord Apparels Limited v. M/S Gangotri Textiles Limited

Madras HC23 Mar 2026AS/536/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, AS No. 536 of 2013, K.Kumaresh Babu J., decided 23-03-2026. Appeal suit under Section 96 CPC by Ramlord Apparels Limited against judgment and decree dated 16.04.2013 in O.S.No.46 of 2010, IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore (money decree in favour of M/s Gangotri Textiles Limited). Respondents unrepresented; R2 Official Assignee, NCLT Chennai impleaded 10.03.2025 in CMP.No.14767 of 2024. Respondent company struck off from Register of Companies (MCA portal), liquidated with no claim against appellant, no Execution Petition filed, appellant not shown as debtor in insolvency proceedings. Decree unexecutable, respondent no longer a juristic entity; lis deadwood; appeal suit closed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal suit closed without adjudication of the lis; no costs awarded. ¶43

Ramlord Apparels Limited Vs M/S Gangotri Textiles Limited — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal suit closed without adjudication of the lis; no costs awarded.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2013 in O.S.No.46 of 2010 ought to be adjudicated, given that the decree-holder respondent has been struck off from the Register of Companies, has been liquidated, and has taken no steps to execute the decree.

¶39

Court's answer

The respondent, who held the benefit of the money decree against the appellant, stands struck off from the Register of Companies; consequently the decree passed against the appellant cannot be executed, as the respondent is no longer a juristic entity entitled to claim the relief.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

No execution proceedings were initiated by the respondent under the decree, the answer on the query regarding any Execution Petition having been in the negative.

¶37

Key takeaways

In the insolvency proceedings through which the respondent was proceeded with, the appellant was not shown to be a debtor to the respondent, and no proceedings for adjudication of the debt were made against the appellant.ratio¶37
In the liquidation of the respondent company, no claim was made against the appellant for the monies that had been granted in his favour.ratio¶31
The lis had become deadwood, as no claims could be made based upon the decree impugned in the appeal; the Court was therefore not inclined to adjudicate it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal Suit (AS No. 536 of 2013, High Court of Judicature at Madras, K.Kumaresh Babu J., 23-03-2026) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2013 in O.S.No.46 of 2010 of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, whereby the respondent, M/s Gangotri Textiles Limited, held a money decree against the appellant, Ramlord Apparels Limited. Despite service of notice on both respondents (the second respondent, the Official Assignee, NCLT Chennai, having been impleaded on 10.03.2025 in CMP.No.14767 of 2024), there was no representation. The respondent company stood struck off from the Register of Companies (its status so recorded on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal) and had been liquidated, with no claim preferred against the appellant for the monies granted in his favour; no Execution Petition was ever filed, and in the insolvency proceedings the appellant was neither shown as a debtor nor subjected to any adjudication of debt. The Court held the decree incapable of execution as the respondent was no longer a juristic entity, found the lis to have become deadwood, declined to adjudicate it, and closed the appeal suit without costs.

¶1

AS No. 536 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

AS No. 536 of 2013

¶7

Ramlord Apparels Limited 9/10, Akurli Industrial Estate Akurli Rd, Kandivilli East, Mumbai.

¶8

..Appellant(s)

¶9

¶10

M/s Gangotri Textiles Limited Factory Unit III, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Perundurai, Erode District,

¶11

Rep By Its Manager S. Mutukumarasamy

¶12

S/o.Subramaniam

¶13

Office at Old No.35, New No. 42, Robertson Road, R.S Puram,

¶14

Coimbatore – 2.

¶15

The Official Assignee The National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai.

¶16

(R2 is impleaded vide order of Court dated 10.03.2025 made in CMP.NO.14767 of 2024 in AS.No.536 of 2013)

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

Prayer : Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2013 made in O.S.No.46 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

¶19

For Appellant(s): Mr.T.Balaji For Respondent(s): No appearance

¶20

Page1 of 5

¶21

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

¶22

AS No. 536 of 2013

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The instant appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2013 made in O.S.No.46 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

¶25

Heard Mr.T.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

In spite of notice having been served on respondents 1 and 2 and their

¶27

names also having been printed in the cause list today, there is no representation on the side of the respondents 1 and 2.

¶28

The status of the respondent company had been recorded as been struck

¶29

off in the portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. In such view of the matter, there shall be no useful purpose in adjudicating the present lis.

¶30

It has also been brought on record that the respondent company had

¶31

also been subjected to liquidation proceedings and had been liquidated, wherein there had not been any claim against the appellant herein for the monies that had been granted in his favour.

¶32

Page2 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

AS No. 536 of 2013

¶35

From the facts that have been indicated, it is could only be presumed

¶36

that the respondent, who had the benefit of the money decree against the appellant, had not taken any steps for recovery of dues under the decree and, as of this date, the respondent has also been struck off from the Register of the Companies and hence, the decree that had been passed against the appellant could also not be executed as the respondent is no more a juristic entity to claim the relief.

¶37

The Court has also queried as to whether the respondent had filed any Execution Petition, to which an answer was made in the negative, indicating that no execution proceedings had been initiated. The respondent, who had been proceeded with in the insolvency proceedings, had also not shown the appellant to be a debtor to it and no proceedings for adjudication of the debt that has also been made against the appellant.

¶38