Dismissed

M/s.Protective packaing, v. M/s.Paras Collins Distilleries Pvt.Ltd.

Telangana HC29 Aug 2012CP/118/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing multiple Company Petitions. The Court held that in the absence of petitioners filing additional affidavits to detail their financial claims and the genuineness of the debt dispute, it is inappropriate to declare the company unable to pay debts. All petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

All Company Petitions are dismissed due to failure to file required affidavits specifying financial details.

M/s.Protective packaing, Vs M/s.Paras Collins… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

COMPANY PETITION Nos. 107, 108, 109, 110, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 132, 133, 134, 135, 152 and 153 of OF 2006

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

This Court, in its order dated 16.3.2012, noted that, under a consent award, United Spirits is said to have transferred certain advances, due to it from the petitioners, to the benefit of the respondent company, and had permitted the respondent to adjust its dues to the petitioners, from the advances due and payable by the petitioners to United Spirits. This Court directed additional affidavits to be filed by each of the petitioners, in this batch of company petitions, furnishing details of the money due and payable to them by the respondent as on date, as also details of the advances which they had received from United Spirits. Thereafter the matter suffered adjournments on 22.3.2012, 3.4.2012 and 24.4.2012, and though more than five months have elapsed, from the date of the order afore-mentioned, the additional affidavits, as directed by this Court, have not been filed.

¶5

Since the Counsel for the petitioners was absent on 22.03.2012, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “for dismissal”. The matter has been listed under the caption “for dismissal” today. Sri C. Kodandaram, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that, despite repeated efforts, they have not received instructions; the petitioners were not furnishing the information sought for; and, as such, the said additional affidavits could not be filed.

¶6

In the absence of the information sought for being furnished,

¶7

neither can it be held that the defence of the respondent is a moon-shine, nor would this Court be in a position to judge whether the dispute, regarding the liability and quantum of the alleged debt, is bona fide or not. Since winding up proceedings are a remedy of the last resort and, even admission of the Company Petition and its advertisement would have adverse consequences on the respondent-company, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court even to hold, prima facie, that the respondent has neglected to pay, and is unable to pay its debts.

¶8

All the Company Petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

¶9

__________ 29-8-2012

¶10

asp

M/s.Protective packaing, v. M/s.Paras Collins Distilleries Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Protective packaing, v. M/s.Paras Collins Distilleries Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.v.v.Narayana Vs R.Balasubrahmanyan

Smt. R.Sujatha, Vs Mr. D.v.Krishna Vinayak

Haji Mohammed Ahmed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Sri Venkata Ramana Reddy Transport Vs M/s.Paras Collins Distilleries Pvt.Ltd.

Acura Labs Private Limited, Vs -

M/s.G.B.Enterprises Vs Bokelite Resines and Forms Ltd. and Anothers