Disposed

M/S Paam Drugs Pharmaceuticals v. Arvind Bhargava and Others

Rajasthan HC18 Oct 2024COAP/163/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a company application against ex-directors. The Court found that since secured creditors and workmen dues were met and no other claims remain, the proceedings are infructuous, though they may revive if new tenable claims are filed post-dissolution.

What did the court decide?

The company application is disposed of as infructuous, with a proviso for revival if new tenable claims are filed.

M/S Paam Drugs Pharmaceuticals Vs Arvind Bhargava… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:43731]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Company Application No. 163/2010

¶4

¶5

S.B. Company Petition No. 23/2001

¶6

Official Liquidator for M/s Paam Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited (in Liquidation) having office at: G-6,7, Corporate Bhavan, Civil Lines, Jaipur

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Arvind Bhargava, Ex-Managing Director – M/s. Paam Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, R/o 3, Bhargava Lane, Nityanand Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi- 110054

¶10

Sharad Bhargava, Ex-Director-M/s. Paam Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, R/o- 11-C/86, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh- 201001

¶11

Umashankar S/o Late Sh. Rama Shanker, Ex-Director- M/s. Paam Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, R/o. C-102, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Munendra Singh Fouzdar for
	Mr.	Rahul Lodha for OL
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Dinesh Bishnoi

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶15

Order

¶16

18/10/2024

¶17

Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator has submitted an additional affidavit in pursuance to the order dated 17.05.2024.

¶18

In the said affidavit, it is categorically noted that on 03.12.2004, a winding up order was passed in SBCOP No. 23/2001. Subsequently, an order for dissolution was passed on 30.09.2021.

[2024:RJ-JP:43731]

[COAP-163/2010]

(2 of 3)

Furthermore, it is submitted that the present matter is pending under Section 543 of the Companies Act, against the exdirectors of the company in liquidation.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator has further submitted that the secured debtors and workmen dues as per the said list of creditors, under Rule 167 and 169 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, are duly met out as per the arrangements.

¶24

In compliance of the court order dated 17.05.2018, entire assets of the company in liquidation were sold back.

¶25

It is further submitted that claim of the secured creditors was not completely satisfied by the Official Liquidator due to insufficiency of funds after having realized the amount from the sale proceeds of assets of the company in liquidation.

¶26

Lastly, it is submitted that the company was dissolved under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, vide order dated 08.12.2022, subject to pending decision on SBCOAP No. 23/2001, under Section 543 of the Companies Act,1956, involving claim against the ex-directors of the company in liquidation.

¶27

In summation of the aforementioned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ex-directors has submitted that as dissolution is carried out, secured creditors and workmen dues are disposed of and nothing is left with the company qua the claim raised by any side. Therefore, present proceedings/petition is rendered infructuous.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

Considering the additional affidavit, considering the facts of the case, and taking note of the fact that claims qua all the secured creditors, workmen are met out as per the available funds

¶30

[2024:RJ-JP:43731] (3 of 3) [COAP-163/2010]

¶31

and no other claimants are present on record, it can be inferred that continuance of the present proceedings are not desired forthwith.

¶32

Accordingly, in light of the above said, instant matter appears to be infructuous and is therefore disposed of. Howsoever, in light of the observation of dissolution order dated 30.09.2021, it is made clear that, if any claim or any related proceedings are filed in accordance with law are tenable and the proceedings will revive, after due consideration by the concerned Court.

¶33

In light of the above said, present application is disposed of.

¶34

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶35

Pooja /399

M/S Paam Drugs Pharmaceuticals v. Arvind Bhargava and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Paam Drugs Pharmaceuticals v. Arvind Bhargava and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biyo Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajkumar S/O Late Shri Kesriya, Vs State of Rajasthan

Tej Singh @ Teji S/O Ram Khiladi Vs State of Rajasthan

O.L. Vs Jagmohan Das Mundra

The Official Liq. of R B B L Vs Shri Sandeep Sahni

Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vijay Solvex Limited