Allowed

Mr. ChinnamNagavenu Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy v. M/s. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.

Telangana HC8 Apr 2015COMPA/678/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to set aside ex parte winding up order and restore company petition due to alleged fraud by a former director. The respondent company consented to allow the petitioned company an opportunity to contest merits, leading to recall of winding up and appointment of liquidator set aside.

What did the court decide?

Winding up order dated 16-04-2014 recalled, company petition restored, Official Liquidator appointed appointed relieved from affairs.

Mr. ChinnamNagavenu Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy Vs… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Company Application No.678 of 2015

¶2

Date: 08.04.2015

¶3

Between:

¶4

Chinnam Nagavenu Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy

¶5

..... Applicant

¶6

and

¶7

M/s.Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the applicant: Mr.S.V.Rama Krishna Counsel for the respondents: -----

¶10

The Court made the following: Order:

¶11

This Company Application is filed by the Managing Director of non-applicant No.2 to set aside Order, dated 16-04-2014, in Company Petition No.82 of 2013 and permit non-applicant No.2 to participate in the proceedings of the Company Petition.

¶12

By Order, dated 16-04-2014, this Court has ordered winding up of non-applicant No.2- Company. Before the Company Petition was admitted, notice was ordered to non-applicant No.2 to its registered

¶13

office address. As the notice was returned unserved, non-applicant No.1 was permitted to serve notice through substituted service by way of publication. Even after such publication, non-applicant No.2 has not entered appearance. Therefore, this Court has admitted the Company Petition.

¶14

The notice of admission of the Company Petition was published in the newspapers as per the directions of this Court. Even after such publication, non-applicant No.2 has not entered appearance. The oral evidence on behalf of non-applicant No.1 was recorded. Even then, there was no representation for non-applicant No.2, and hence, it was set ex parte. Thereafter, the winding up Order, dated 16-04-2014, was passed and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as the Liquidator of nonapplicant No.2- Company. Thereafter, the applicant herein has filed this Company Application for setting aside the above-mentioned winding up order.

¶15

In the detailed affidavit filed by the applicant, the alleged fraud committed by one of its former Directors by name Mr.MVS.Ramu has been narrated with documentary proof. This Application was heard in minute detail.

¶16

Mr.R.Raghunandan, learned Senior Counsel

¶17

appearing for non-applicant No.1, has strongly opposed this Application in the beginning. After a detailed hearing of the case, he has requested for a short adjournment to seek further instructions from his client as to whether, on the facts pleaded and prima facie proved by the applicant that fraud was played on him and non-applicant No.2Company by Mr.MVS.Ramu, his client is willing to give nonapplicant No.2 an opportunity to contest the case on merits. Accordingly, the case has been adjourned to today.

¶18

Today, at the hearing, Mrs.Shireen Sethna Baria, learned Counsel for non-applicant No.1, in all fairness, communicated the views of her client that it is gracious enough to think that non-applicant No.2 is also a victim of fraud as non-applicant No.1 itself is. The learned Counsel has, therefore, fairly conceded that without prejudice to its contentions to be advanced in the Company Petition against nonapplicant No.2, the latter may be given an opportunity to contest the Company Petition on merits.

¶19

In the light of the above facts, Order, dated 1604-2014, in Company Petition No.82 of 2013 is recalled and Company Petition No.82 of 2013 is restored to file. Consequently, the appointment of the

¶20

Official Liquidator attached to this Court as the Liquidator of non-applicant No.2 is also set aside and he is relieved from the affairs of non-applicant No.2.

¶21

The Company Application is allowed

¶22

accordingly.

¶23

As a sequel, Company Application Nos.127 and 128 of 2015 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 8^th April, 2015 Lur

Mr. ChinnamNagavenu Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy v. M/s. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. ChinnamNagavenu Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy v. M/s. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.

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

Mc Consulting Engineers, Vs -

M/S.Sriba Industries Limited. Vs -

M/S.Trigeo Technologies Pvrt.Ltd. Vs -

Koppunuri Basappa Vs The Priyadarshini Coop.housing Society limited

M/s.Soubhagya Projects (P) Ltd., (In Liqn.) Vs Sri Chinnam Nagavenu Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy

C. Venkateswara Rao Vs S. Satyavathi