Allowed

M/s.Etos Consulting Ltd.(In Liqn.), v. -

Telangana HC29 Apr 2014COMPA/635/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condoned the delay in filing two belated claims by secured creditors in a liquidation case and directed the Official Liquidator to adjudicate them based on documentary evidence, as funds were available to satisfy the claims.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing two belated claims condoned; Official Liquidator directed to adjudicate claims based on documentary evidence.

M/s.Etos Consulting Ltd.(In Liqn.), Vs - — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY COMPANY APPLICATION No.635 of 2014

¶2

Date:29.04.2014

¶3

M/s ETOS Consulting Ltd (in liqn), reptd., by the Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶4

……Applicant/

¶5

Counsel for the Applicant: Sri M.Anil Kumar

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Company Application is filed by the Deputy Official Liquidator for appropriate direction to the Official Liquidator either to reject the two belated claims or adjudicate the same after condoning the delay in filing the claims.

¶9

In his affidavit, the Deputy Official Liquidator has stated that in pursuance of order passed by this Court on 29.12.2010 in Company Application No.1538 of 2010 in Company Petition No.147 of 2001, he has invited claims from the creditors of the company (in liquidation), in response to which, he has received 28 claims, which included four double claims from the creditors, before the last date fixed for receiving such claims; and that the Official Liquidator has adjudicated the claims of 20 creditors who have submitted the documentary evidence and the claims of the remaining six claimants are kept pending for want of submission of documentary evidence by them.

¶10

The Deputy Official Liquidator has further stated that two secured creditors, namely; Sri Rahamathulla Khan and Sri Shaik Raoofuddin made their claims belatedly on 13.10.2011 and 28.12.2011, respectively; that the Official Liquidator has addressed letters on 20.10.2011 and 24.01.2012, respectively, to the said claimants advising them to approach this Court and seek condonation of delay, but till date the said claimants have not filed any proof of condonation of delay by this Court. He has further stated that the amount claimed by these two claimants is Rs.25,000/each.

¶11

At the hearing, Sri M.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator, stated that an amount of Rs.4,79,100/- is lying to the credit of the company (in liquidation); and that if the delay is condoned by this Court and the two belated claims are allowed by the Official Liquidator, subject to his satisfaction based on the documentary evidence produced by the said two claimants, the amount lying to the credit of the company (in liquidation) is sufficient to satisfy their claims.

¶12

In the light of the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice that the delay in filing the claims by the said two creditors is condoned.

¶13

Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the Official Liquidator is directed to adjudicate the claims of the afore-mentioned two creditors based on the documentary evidence that may have been produced by them.

¶14

The Company Application is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶15

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA

¶16

REDDY

¶17

29^th April, 2014 DR

M/s.Etos Consulting Ltd.(In Liqn.), v. -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Etos Consulting Ltd.(In Liqn.), v. -

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

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-10-2012 to 31-03-2013.

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-10-2012 to 31-03-2013.

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-10-2012 to 31-03-2013.

The Official Liquidator Vs -

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-10-2012 to 31-03-2013.

The Official Liquidator Vs -