M/S Mahakali Sales Corporation, Prop Of Kalpesh Pranabbhai Doshi v. Maharashtra Steels Pvt. Ltd.

1/2 42.CA-193-2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.193 OF 2016 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.1187 OF 2015 M/s. Mahakali Sales Corporation ....Applicant/Petitioner Vs.

Maharashtra Steels Private Limited ....Respondent ---- Mr. Niraj Shah i/b. M/s. Law Chamber of Siddharth Murarka for applicant/petitioner.

None for respondent.

---- CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATE : 9th JANUARY, 2018 P.C.:

This application has been lodged on 4th January, 2016. When the petition itself was taken up for admission on 28th June, 2017, petitioner did not press for appointment of Provisional Liquidator. When this application is taken up today, there is nothing shown as to why the Court should appoint Provisional Liquidator when it was not found necessary by petitioner on 28th June, 2017. Moreover, the counsel for applicant does not even know whether this application has been served upon respondent company or not. Moreover, the basis of this application itself is two fold, (a) as stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support "it is now learnt the respondent company is in the process of diverting/disposing of some of its assets, to the false enrichment of the Directors". There is nothing in the application to show the basis for making this statement and (b) respondent Gauri Gaekwad

2/2 42.CA-193-2016.doc company forms part of a group companies and one of the group companies has been ordered to be wound up by this Court. Again that cannot be a reason for appointment of Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator. Applicant has to make out a case with some cogent evidence as to why it has now became necessary to appoint Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator. As applicant has not made out the case, the application stands dismissed.

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gauri Gaekwad