Disposed

O.L. v. Jagmohan Das Mundra

Rajasthan HC18 Oct 2024COAP/57/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an application by the Official Liquidator against ex-directors under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956. Finding that the company was dissolved and secured debtors/workmen dues were settled, the court held the proceedings infructuous but reserved the right to revive them if tenable claims are filed later.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as infructuous; court reserved right to revive proceedings if tenable claims are filed in accordance with law.

O.L. Vs Jagmohan Das Mundra — 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. 57/1996

¶4

¶5

S. B. Company Petition No. 5/1999

¶6

Official Liquidator attached to the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, “Corporate Bhawan” G/6-7, Residency Area, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

¶7

----Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shri Jagmohan Das Moondra, (since deceased) now represented by his following legal representatives:-

¶10

1/1 Shri V. M. Moondra and

¶11

1/2 Shri S. M. Moondra

¶12

Both are sons of late Shri Jag Mohandas Moondra R/o Shree Bhawan outside Nathusar Gate, Bikaner to be served through the counsel representative the Respondent No. 2)

¶13

Shri Hari Mohan Das Moondra S/o Late Shri Jagmohandas Moondra, R/o Shree Bhawan, Outside Nathusar Gate, Bikaner.

¶14

Shri Bahadur Mal Daga (since deceased) now represented by the following legal representatives:-

¶15

3/1 Shri Naveen Daga

¶16

3/2 Shri Sumeet Daga

¶17

Both are sons of Late Shri Bahadur Mal Daga, C/o Daga & Company, Gangasahar Road, Bikaner (To be served through the counsel representing the respondent No. 2)

¶18

Shri Hari Ram Sharma S/o Shri B. L. Sharma, House No. 14, Sector No. 15, Faridabad, Haryana.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Choudhary for OL For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo Sr. Counsel with Mr. Pratyush Sharma Mr. Hans Pratap Singh Mr. Shivan Mishra

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

18/10/2024

[2024:RJ-JP:43731]

[COAP-51/2010]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator has written submissions in pursuance to the order dated 17.05.2024.

¶28

In the same, it is categorically noted that on 14.07.1995, a winding up order was passed in S.B. Company Petition No. 5/1990. Subsequently, an order for dissolution was passed on 26.11.2020 (same is taken on record).

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

In compliance of the Court orders entire assets of the company in liquidation were sold and possession of the same was given to the purchasers.

¶32

Lastly, it is submitted that the company was dissolved under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, vide order dated 26.11.2020, subject to pending decision on SBCOAP No. 57/1996, under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, involving claim against the ex-directors of the company in liquidation.

¶33

In summation of the aforementioned, learned counsel representing 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, the present proceedings/petition is rendered infructuous.

Heard.

[2024:RJ-JP:43731]

[COAP-51/2010]

(3 of 3)

Considering the written submissions furnished furnished by the Official Liquidator and the dissolution order dated 26.11.2020 (taken on record); 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 and no other claimants are present on record, it can be inferred that continuance of the present proceedings are not desired forthwith.

¶39

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 order dated 26.11.2020, 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.

¶40

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

¶41

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶42

Pooja /395

O.L. v. Jagmohan Das Mundra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.L. v. Jagmohan Das Mundra

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

M/S Paam Drugs Pharmaceuticals Vs Arvind Bhargava and Others

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

Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vijay Solvex Limited