Disposed

S v. a India Ltd. v M/S Paras Rampuria Synthetics Ltd.

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2019COP/24/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple company petitions regarding possession of liquidation property. Relying on a Supreme Court order that set aside a lower decision on Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the court directed the Official Liquidator not to proceed further and to hand over possession to the Resolution Professional. The petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Official Liquidator directed not to proceed further and to hand over possession to the Resolution Professional; all company petitions disposed of and consigned to record.

S v a India Ltd. Vs M/S Paras Rampuria… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Company Petition No. 24/1997
1. S V A India Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Paras Rampuria Synthetics Ltd.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Company Application No. 10/1997
2. S V A India Ltd
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Parasram Puria Synthetics
----Respondent
S.B. Company Petition No. 33/1997
3. M/s Indian Petro Chemicals Ltd
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Parasram Puria Syntex Ltd
----Respondent
S.B. Company Petition No. 25/1998
4. Goetzee India Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s.parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd.
----Respondent
S.B. Company Application No. 26/1998
5. Goetze India Ltd
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd
----Respondent
S.B. Company Petition No. 19/1999

¶3

(2 of 3)

¶4

[COP-24/1997]

¶5

Ms Simplex Concrete Piles Indi

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Parasarmpuria Synthetics Ltd

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

S.B. Company Petition No. 28/1999

¶11

M/s Dcm Sriram Consolited Ltd

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

M/s Paras Ram Puria Synthetics

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. U.S.Patole, OL with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv Mr. Anant Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amol Vyas, Adv. for Resolution Professional

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶18

Judgment / Order

¶19

03/01/2019

¶20

The Official Liquidator has submitted a report informing that possession of the property in liquidation has been taken over.

¶21

It has been informed that learned that DP Spl. Appeal has been preferred against the order passed by this court dated 5^th July, 2018. This court also notices that while passing of the order dated 5^th July, 2018, this court had relied upon the order passed dated by this court in the case of Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Dhir Asset Reconstruction vide its order dated 1^st June, 2018. The said order has already been set aside by Supreme Court(Civil Appeal No.12023/2018) vide order dated 12.12.2018 holding as under:

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[COP-24/1997]

¶24

“We are of the view that the NCLT was absolutely correct in applying Section 238 of the Code to an independent proceeding instituted by a secured financial creditor, namely, the Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. This being the case, it is difficult to comprehend how the High Court could have held that the proceedings before the NCLT were without jurisdiction. On this score, therefore, the High Court judgment has to be set aside. The NCLT proceedings will now continue from the stage at which they have been left off. Obviously, the company petition pending before the High Court cannot be proceeded with further in view of Section 238 of the Code. The writ petitions that are pending before the High Court have also to be disposed of in light of the fact that proceedings under the Code must run their entire course. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment.”

¶25

In view of above, the OL is directed not to proceed further with the matter and take steps as per order dated 12^th December, 2018 passed by the Supreme Court.

¶26

The OL shall hand over the possession to the Resolution professional appointed under the IBC code by the NCLT vide order dated 17.5.2018 and the expenses which OL has incurred appointing security agency shall be resolved with the Resolution Professional. The proceedings before this court in the company petition No.24/1997 shall stand closed.

¶27

All the company petitions are disposed off accordingly and consigned to record.

¶28

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶29

Anu/

S v. a India Ltd. v M/S Paras Rampuria Synthetics Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S v. a India Ltd. v M/S Paras Rampuria Synthetics Ltd.

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

Bhanwar Lal Vs M D General Manager Rsrtc and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Gora S/O Shyobux Ram Gora Vs University of Rajasthan, through Its Registrar

Prithvi Raj Bairwa S/O Shri Gokulram Bairwa Vs Executive Engineer

Goetzee India Ltd. Vs M/S.Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd.

Ms Simplex Concrete Piles Indi Vs Parasarmpuria Synthetics Ltd.

M/S Dcm Sriram Consolited Ltd. Vs M/S Paras Ram Puria Synthetics