OLR No. 71 of 2024 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 12 Dec 2024
- Bench
- ABHAY AHUJA
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Accordingly, having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the submissions made by Mr. Carvalho, this Court is of the view that notice inviting comments, claims and objections from the creditors/workers/stakeholders/contributories etc. of the Company in liquidation be allowed to be published in accordance…
- Para 44. The Official Liquidator’s Report is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus : “(a) In view of submission made in para (18) supra of this report, whether this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the Official Liquidator to invite the…
Judgment
Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. Mr. Chandan Kumar, Official Liquidator with Mr. Anil Bhagure, Assistant Official Liquidator, present. ------------- CORAM DATE : : ABHAY AHUJA, J. 12 DECEMBER 2024 P.C. :
Pursuant to the order 5th September 2024, today when the matter is called out, Mr. Carvalho, learned Counsel, appears for the Official Liquidator and submits that although the Petitioning Creditor and the Secured Creditor have been served, however, as far as the ex- directors are concerned, packets have been returned by the Postal Department with a remark “item returned - addressee left without instructions”. Kanchan Dhuri 1/3
Mr. Carvalho submits that the addresses of the three directors are the same as available on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and that therefore, this Court consider the Official Liquidator’s Report and grant prayer clause (a), in as much as by order of this Court, the affairs of the Company have been completely wound up and no claims have been received from the workmen or from the secured creditors.
Accordingly, having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the submissions made by Mr. Carvalho, this Court is of the view that notice inviting comments, claims and objections from the creditors/workers/stakeholders/contributories etc. of the Company in liquidation be allowed to be published in accordance with Section 481(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 proforma notice whereof is at page
The Official Liquidator’s Report is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus : “(a) In view of submission made in para (18) supra of this report, whether this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the Official Liquidator to invite the comments, claims, objections from the creditors, workers, stakeholders, shareholders of the said Companies (In Liquidation) by giving 14 days’ notice Kanchan Dhuri 2/3 against dissolution of the companies under Section 481(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 by publishing a Dissolution Notice as per Exhibit- “O” in “Free Press Journal” and “Navshakti” circulated in Mumbai, Maharashtra.”
List this matter on board for compliance of the aforesaid prayer and for consideration of the other prayers, on 31st January 2025.
Let an appropriate Affidavit of publication also be filed by the next date.
Registry to accept the Affidavit of service. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) Kanchan Dhuri 3/3
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 12 Dec 2024. The bench was ABHAY AHUJA.
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.