✦ Delhi High Court · 19 Apr 2010

M/s Jagatjit Brown Forman (India) Ltd. (in Liqn) v. Kerala State Beverages Corpn

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA3 min read

Case at a glance

Order date
19 Apr 2010
Bench
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

Outcome

Disposed of

The application is disposed of

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 1010. The application is disposed of. APRIL 19, 2010 SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. CA(C) No. 59 of 2008

Judgment

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

1.

This is an application by the Official Liquidator attached to this Court under S.446 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the recovery of an amount of Rs.14,081/- with interest @ 18% per annum, from the respondent M/s Kerala State Beverages Corporation.

2.

Pursuant to a petition filed on 14th December, 1999, M/s Jagatjit Brown Forman (India) Pvt. Ltd. was directed to be provisionally wound up on 19th December, 2003 and final winding up CA(C) No. 59 of 2008 orders were passed by this Court on 12th January, 2005. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as its liquidator.

3.

The company in liquidation, i.e M/s Jagatjit Brown Forman (India) Pvt. Ltd., was in the business of manufacture, sale and export of liquor and alcoholic beverages and other consumer products.

4.

On examination of the statement of affairs filed by the Ex- Directors under S.454 of the Companies Act, 1956 along with a list of debtors, the Official Liquidator discovered that an amount of Rs. 14,081/- is due to the company in liquidation from the respondent. The Official Liquidator has, therefore, moved this application praying for an order of recovery of the said amount, along with interest @18% per annum till its realization in favour of the applicant, against the respondent.

5.

There has been no appearance on behalf of the respondent so far. The affidavit of service of the respondent has since been filed. Consequently, the respondent was directed to be proceeded ex-parte, and the matter was adjourned to 10th March, 2010. On 12th April, 2010, the applicant’s evidence was completed and arguments were heard.

6.

An affidavit of Shri Sudhir Kapoor, Assistant Official Liquidator, was filed on 6th April, 2010 by way of evidence in support of the application. Ex.PW1/1 is a computerized copy of the ledger account maintained by the company in liquidation, pertaining to the respondent. In that ledger, a debit balance of Rs. 14,081/- is reflected. CA(C) No. 59 of 2008 Ex.PW1/2 is a copy of the demand notice dated 19th July, 2005 sent by the Official Liquidator to the respondent under S.446 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking recovery of Rs. 14,081/-. Ex.PW1/3 is a copy of the speed post tracking document, evidencing that the aforesaid notice was duly served. The respondent has not bothered to respond to the notice of demand.

7.

It is stated by counsel for the OL that this claim was due to the company in liquidation on 31st March, 2000 and is within limitation.

8.

There is no defence to the claim. The amount claimed stands proved.

9.

Consequently, the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 14,081/- to the applicant, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realization of the amount in favour of the applicant.

Operative part

10.

The application is disposed of. APRIL 19, 2010 SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. CA(C) No. 59 of 2008

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The application is disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Companies Act, 2013 — ss. 446, 454.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Delhi High Court, on 19 Apr 2010. The bench was SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Delhi High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments