← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/1613/2023disposed of

Pramod Paranthaman v. Ramraghav Spintex Private Limited

2023-07-17Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice P.D.Audikesavalu4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.07.2023 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU Pramod Paranthaman Suspended Director of M/s.Sri Paranthaman Textiles Private Limited, Old No.85, New No.91, Manoharan Street, South West Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

.. Petitioner Vs 1.M/s.Ram Raghav Spintex Private Limited, Mittal Commercial Premises Co-op Soc Ltd., No.409, 4th Floor, C-Wing CTS No.1629, Village Marol, Off Mathura Das Vasanji Road, Near Mittal Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059.

2.Ramasamy M Interim Resolution Professional M/s.Sri Paranthaman Textiles Private Limited, Old No.85, New No.91, Manoharan Street, South West Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

.. Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.04.2023 made in I.A.Diary No.33051180/0736/2023 in IBA/1309/2019 on the file of the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Chennai. For the Petitioner : Mr.Anil Relwani For the Respondents : Mr.S.R.Raghunathan for M/s.K.V.Kartik Subramanian for respondent No.1 : No appearance for respondent No.2

ORDER

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.Anil Relwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the first respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the appellate tribunal.

3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

this Court may entertain the civil revision petition, considering that the petitioner has an alternate remedy, we are not inclined to consider the civil revision petition on merits.

4. The civil revision petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy. In that event, all contentions are kept open. The petitioner may seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as may be applicable. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.10495 of 2023 is closed.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 17.07.2023 Index : Yes/No bbr

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

bbr 17.07.2023