Disposed of a company petition for winding up the respondent for non-payment of debt after a settlement was fully performed with a delay. The court reserved interest claims for the civil court and closed other related applications.
Company petition and AILs closed; party to seek interest in civil court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
COMPANY PETITION No.249 of 2013
Dated: 02.09.2014
Between:
M/s. EMCO Limited, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory Praveen Kumar
.. Petitioner and
Lanco Infratech Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director. .. Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. P.V. Aruna Kumari For Mr. J. Venkateshwar Rao
Counsel for the respondent: Mr. N.V. Shravan Kumar for Mr. Challa Gunarajan
This Court made the following:
ORDER:
This company petition is filed for an order to wind up the respondent for non-payment of the debt due to the petitioner.
On behalf of the respondent, its counsel has filed a memo, wherein he has stated that settlement agreement dated 21.02.2014 was entered into between the parties, as per which a sum of Rs.2,17,94,000/- was agreed to be paid by the respondent and received by the petitioner and that in pursuance of the said settlement, the respondent has initially paid a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs on 31.03.2014, another sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs on 18.04.2014 and a further sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs on 11.07.2014. It is further stated that the balance amount was paid on 30.08.2014 through RTGS and that thereby the respondent has stood on its commitment under the settlement agreement, by paying off the entire sum of Rs.2,17,94,000/-.
Smt. P.V. Aruna Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that though the entire amount has been paid under the settlement agreement, the respondent did not adhere to the time schedule and that there was a delay of 5 months in completing the payment of the entire agreed amount.
In view of the settlement reached between the parties and the payments made by the respondent as per the said settlement, albeit with delay, I do not intend to keep the company petition pending. However, if the petitioner feels that it is entitled to recover interest on
the delayed payment, it shall be free to approach the competent civil court for this purpose.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the company petition is closed.
As a sequel to closure of the company petition, Company Application Nos.1185 and 1186 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd September, 2014 IBL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the company petition for winding up of the respondent on grounds of non-payment of debt.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim interest on delayed payments from the respondent.
M/s. EMCO Limited
Lanco Infratech Limited
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
