Disposed

Yatish Kumar Goel v. Mool Chand Birla and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2011CR/4175/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a civil revision under Article 226 challenging an order dismissing a prayer to adjourn a suit sine die due to the petitioner-company's liquidation status. The High Court stayed further proceedings in the trial court following the winding up order but granted liberty to approach the Company Court.

What did the court decide?

Exemption granted; stay of proceedings before the trial court; liberty to approach the Company Court.

Yatish Kumar Goel Vs Mool Chand Birla and… — Company and Corporate | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR No.4175 of 2011 (O&M) [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Revision No.4175 of 2011 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision: 16 - 9 - 2011

¶5

Yatish Kumar Goel

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Mool Chand Birla and another ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

¶11

Present: Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Anand Chhibber, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

¶14

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

In CM No.22366-CII of 2011

¶16

C.M. is allowed. Exemption is granted as prayed for and

¶17

additional affidavit of Mool Chand Birla – respondent No.1 is taken on record.

¶18

CR No.4175 of 2011

¶19

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that order dated 2.5.2011, Annexure P3, passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Malout, whereby it had dismissed the application, Annexure P2, filed by the petitioner, wherein a prayer was made that the suit be adjourned sine die, as

¶20

CR No.4175 of 2011 (O&M) [2]

¶21

the petitioner-company is under liquidation.

¶22

This Court, on 25.8.2011 had passed the following order:-

¶23

“Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Harihar Nath and others vs. State Bank of India and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 457 to contend that in view of the specific embargo under Section 446 of the Companies Act, civil Court can not proceed with the recovery suit.

¶24

Mr.S.M.Wadhera, Advocate prays for an adjournment to distinguish the judgment.

¶25

List on 16.09.2011 for arguments.

¶26

Till then further proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed.”

¶27

Today Mr,Anand Chhibber, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has stated that on the day when the application for stay of the suit was filed, the petitioner-company was under provisional liquidation w.e.f. 21.9.2005 and the final winding up order has been passed on 26.8.2011 by Delhi High Court in Company Petition No.306 of 2004/20-52005.

¶28

Since the winding up order has been passed, further proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed. However, liberty is granted to the parties to approach the Company Court to avail the lawful remedy, including transfer of the suit.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition is

¶30

disposed of.

¶31

September 16, 2011.

¶32

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) JUDGE

¶33

Yatish Kumar Goel v. Mool Chand Birla and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yatish Kumar Goel v. Mool Chand Birla and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwinder Kaur Vs Ranjit Kaur and Ors.

Joginder Kaur Vs Chaitanya Kochar

Mam Kaur and Anr. Vs M/S True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. Vs Nachhattar Singh and Ors.

M/S H.N. Traders Vs Rashmi Kukreja

Gauri Shankar Vs Jagbir Singh & Ors.