M/S.Vishnuraam Textiles v. M/S.Tradeline Enterprises

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 07.10.2016 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER C.P.No.232 of 2014 M/s.Vishnuraam Textiles Limited, Rep. By its Authorised Representative, Palappampatty, S.V.Mills (P.O.), Udumalpet 642 128, Tiruppur District.

.. Petitioner v.

M/s Tradeline Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, No.8, L & M Century Plaza, 560-562, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.

.. Respondent Company Petition filed under Section 433 (e) and 434 (1) (a) read with Section 439 (1) (b) of the Companies Act, 1956, to wind up the respondent company namely M/s.Tradeline Enterprises Private Limited, having its office at No.8, L & M Century Plaza, 560-562, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018, under the provisions of the Conmpanies Act, 1956; to appoint the official liquidator as liquidator to take charge of the assets and liabilities of the company and to pay the cost of winding proceedings. For Petitioner : Mr.Asoka Pathy for M/s. Pass Associates For Respondent : Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian for M/s.Ramani and Shankar

ORDER

Comp.A.No.912 of 2016 in C.P.No.232 of 2014 1.Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, the learned Senior Counsel, who appears for the applicant/original respondent company, has brought to Court an affidavit dated 07.10.2016, which sets out the schedule of payments to be made to the first respondent.

1.1. Mr.P.H.Arvindpandiah, says that, yesterday, inadvertently the value of the Demand Draft had been given as Rs.2,34,000/-, whereas the Demand Draft is valued at Rs.2,36,756/- 1.2. Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, therefore, says that this correction has to be carried out in the order dated 06.10.2016. 1.3. I have been shown the Demand Draft. Mr.Arvindh Pandian's assertion is correct.

2. Accordingly, paragraphs No.2 and 2.1 of the order dated 06.10.2016, shall stand corrected to the extent indicated above. All other directions contained in the order order shall remain unaltered.

3. The application, otherwise, is for condonation of delay. This

application is not opposed by either the first respondent or the Official Liquidator.

3.1. Accordingly, the prayer made in the application is allowed. The delay is condoned.

3.2. The captioned application is disposed of. C.A.Nos.921 and 922 of 2016

4. These are the two applications moved by the respondent company.

5. In C.A.No.921 of 2016, the prayer made is to set aside the order dated 26.04.2016, passed in C.P.No.232 of 2014, while in C.A.No.922 of 2016, the prayer made is to stay the operation of the very same order i.e., order dated 26.04.2016, passed in the said company petition. Moreover, a b prayer is, also made, to stay further proceedings in the matter.

6. As indicated above, the applicant/respondent company has offered to pay the entire amount claimed by the petitioner on or before 16.12.2016. 6.1. The schedule of payment is reflected in the affidavit dated

07.10.2016 filed on behalf of the applicant/respondent company by one Mr.Prashant P.Palayam.

6.2. The said person claims to be the Ex-Managing Director of the applicant/respondent company. The deponent of the affidavit has set out the following schedule of payment:

Sl.No.

Proposed Date of payment Amount in Rs.

06/10/2016 2,36,756.00 17/10/2016 2,63,244.00 01/11/2016 4,50,000.00 16/11/2016 4,50,000.00 01/12/2016 4,50,000.00 16/12/2016 5,17,556.00 Total 23,67,556.00

7. I have asked Mr.Asoka Pathy, who appears for the first respondent company, as to whether he has instructions to settle the matter based on the schedule of payment placed before this Court by the applicant/respondent company.

7.1. Mr.Asoka Pathy, says he has instructions to accept the settlement on the terms indicated in the affidavit.

8. Accordingly, the applicant/respondent company is bound by its undertaking to make payments of the entire sum amounting to

Rs.23,67,556/- in the manner indicated herein above. 8.1. Upon payment of the entire amount, the claim raised by the petitioner in the present petition will stand settled. 8.2. To be noted, insofar as the first payment is concerned, the Demand Draft in the sum of Rs.2,36,756/- dated 03.10.2016, bearing No.840581, drawn on Vijaya Bank favouring the first respondent has been handed over to Mr.Asokpathy, in Court, today.

9. The applicant/respondent company will adhere to the undertaking given to this Court that the payments will be made on or before the dates indicated in the schedule extracted above.

10. In view of the aforesaid terms, the order dated 26.04.2016 is set aside.

10.1. The Official Liquidator will accordingly take note of the order passed today. Thus, the Official Liquidator will take no further steps, in pursuance of the order dated 26.04.2016.

10.2. Since I have set aside the order, Comp.A.No.922 of 2015 has been rendered infructuous. It is accordingly disposed of.

10.3. Comp.A.No.921 of 2016 is allowed.

10.4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner says that his client has also incurred a sum of Rs.60,575/- towards advertisement and initial expenses. Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, unhesitatingly says that the said sum will be reimbursed to the petitioner within three weeks from today, in addition to the payment set out in the schedule.

11. In view of the orders passed in Comp.A.Nos.921 and 922 of 2016, the company petition will stand closed.

11.1 List the matter for compliance on 19.12.2016. 07.10.2016 vsm RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

vsm

C.P.No.232 of 2014 07.10.2016