Allowed

rep by Bifr v. Managing Director

Telangana HC6 Jan 2012RCC/9/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a company application under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, to dismiss a referred winding-up case. Finding that all dues to the respondents had been settled under compromise schemes, the court held there were no impediments to resolving the matter.

What did the court decide?

Company Application No.1867 of 2011 allowed; Referred Company Case No.9 of 2003 stands dismissed.

rep by Bifr Vs Managing Director — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY COMPANY APPLICATION No.1867 OF 2011 IN / AND

¶2

REFERRED COMPANY CASE NO.9 OF 2003

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This application has been taken under Section 446 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, by the first respondent in Referred Company Case No.9 of 2003 seeking dismissal of the same.

¶5

2. The Company Case No.9 of 2003 came to be registered on the reference order dated 19.11.2003 passed by Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction under Section 21 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The instant application has been moved by the company proposed to be liquidated for dismissal of the Company Case No.9 of 2003 on the ground that all secured dates have been discharged and there are no liabilities which are required to be discharged and therefore continuance of the winding up proceedings is unwarranted. Inspite of notice being served on the respondents, they do not choose to contradict the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application. For better appreciation, I may refer paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit and they are thus:

¶6

“4. I humbly submit that, thereafter that the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 Company was settled the issue with the 4^th respondent and paid the entire amount to them on 04.03.2008 under the Compromise Scheme of the Respondent No.4 and after payment of the entire dues to the Respondent No.4, the Respondent No.3 had also withdrawn the cases against the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 Company and filed its Memo in R.P.No.281 of 2002 in O.A.No.561 of

¶7

2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Hyderabad and on that the Recovery Proceedings initiated by the 4^th Respondent were dismissed as withdrawn under compromise on 08.03.2008 the Respondent No.4 issued a Certificate stating that no dues to the Respondent No.4 from the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 Company.

¶8

5. I humbly submit that the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 Company was also settled the dues to the 3^rd Respondent on 28.03.2011 under compromise scheme and paid 327.67 Lakhs to the 3^rd Respondent and for that the 3^rd Respondent issued a letter dated 28.03.2011 bearing ARM/HYD/13/117 and after that the 3^rd Respondent was also filed its Memo in R.P.No.276 of 2001 in O.A.No.1279 of 1996 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Hyderabad and on that the Recovery Proceedings initiated by the 3^rd Respondent were dismissed as withdrawn under compromise.”

¶9

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the affidavit filed in support of the applicants.

¶10

4. Since the applicant company has settled the amounts due to the respondents 3 and 4, I do not see any impediment in granting the relief as sought for in the application. Accordingly, the application is ordered.

¶11

5. Since Company Application No.1867 of 2011 is allowed, Referred Company Case shall stand dismissed.

¶12

B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

¶13

January 06, 2012

¶14

______________________________

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶17

COMPANY APPLICATION No.1867 OF 2011

¶18

IN / AND

¶19

REFERRED COMPANY CASE NO.9 OF 2003

¶20

January 06, 2012

¶21

rep by Bifr v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

rep by Bifr v. Managing Director

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

P.Ismail Khan Vs S.Venkatesh , Venkanna

P.Ismail Khan Vs S.Venkatesh , Venkanna

P. Ismail Khan Vs S. Venkatesh , Venkanna

Roza-e-Hazrath Shazada Vali Vs Andhra PRadesh State Wakf Board

M/s.Ybrant Digital Limited Vs -

The Official Liquidator Vs -