Dismissed

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., v. M/s.Smith and Kenner Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.

Telangana HC10 Feb 2017OSA/3/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a winding up petition filed under the Companies Act, 1956. The court dismissed the appeal because the underlying ex parte decree of the Debts Recovery Tribunal had subsequently been set aside, leaving the matter at large before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., Vs… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶4

ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL No. 3 of 2017

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

Aggrieved by the dismissal of a petition for winding up, the creditor has come up with the present appeal.

¶7

Heard Mr. M. Narender Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S. Sri Ram, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶8

The appellant filed a petition under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 (1) (a) and (b) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking winding up of the respondent herein. The petition for winding up was filed, on the basis of a certificate of recovery issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, on 15.03.2005.

¶9

The learned Judge, before whom the petition for winding up came up, closed the company petition with liberty to the appellant to revive the company petition, if the respondent failed to pay a sum of Rs.60.00 lakhs. This order was passed by the learned Judge, on the basis of what had happened earlier, namely, the payment of Rs.1.00 crore pursuant to the order passed by the company Court on 05.02.2014. The learned Judge recorded that with the payment of Rs.1.00 crore pursuant to the order dated 05.02.2014, and with the undertaking to pay Rs.60.00 lakhs, the total payment made by the respondent would come to Rs.3.22 crores.

¶10

VRS,J & JUD,,J OSA No. 3 of 2017

¶11

¶12

After the closure of the company petition by the order impugned in this appeal, the respondent admittedly paid a sum of Rs.60.00 lakhs. Hence, the appellant has not been able to seek recourse to the liberty given to them to revive the company petition. Therefore, after accepting the payment of Rs.60.00 lakhs as ordered by the learned Judge, the appellant has come up with the present appeal. It is true that the appeal was filed before the payment was made. But, it got numbered, only after the payment was received.

¶13

Be that as it may, it is stated across the Bar that the ex parte decree granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal has now been set aside, on an appeal filed before the DRAT as against the dismissal of the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Therefore, the matter is now at large before the DRT. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to the appellant to work out their remedies, depending upon what transpires before the Tribunal.

¶14

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the

¶15

appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶17

______________ J. UMA DEVI, J.

¶18

10^th February, 2017 cbs

¶19

VRS,J & JUD,,J OSA No. 3 of 2017

¶20

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN 

¶22

AND

¶23

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶24

O.S.A.No. 3 of 2017 (dismissed)

¶25

10^th February, 2017

¶26

cbs

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., v. M/s.Smith and Kenner Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., v. M/s.Smith and Kenner Pharmaceuticals (P) 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

M/s.Sree Seetharama Bhaktanjaneya Food Processing Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. v.S.Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs M/s. The Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Limited

M/S Shilpa Forever Ceramice, Vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society, Vs The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University

Sri N. Venkata Srinivas, Vs The Income-tax Officer