CITIBANK N.A. LONDON BRANCH Vs. PLETHICO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
LAWS(MPH)-2015-9-138
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (FROM: INDORE)
Decided on
September 15,2015
Citibank N.A. London Branch
Appellant
VERSUS
Plethico Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KIRAN SINGH VS. CHAMAN PASWAN [REFERRED TO]BINOD MILLS CO LIMITED UJJAIN M P VS. SURESH CHANDRA MAHAVEER PRASAD MANTRI BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M K KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR MANJERI MANIKOTH NADUVIL DEAD [REFERRED TO]
BALVANT N VISWAMITRA VS. YADAV SADASHIV MULE [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
PUSHRAJ PURANMULL VS. N ROY [REFERRED TO]
BARODA RAYON CORPORATION LIMITED VS. ICICI LIMITEDDEBENTURE TRUSTEES [REFERRED TO]
APPLE FINANCE LIMITED VS. MANTRI HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JAYSYNTH DYECHEM VS. MEWAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)I.A. No.4759/2015 has been filed by the respondent M/s. Plethico Pharmaceuticals Ltd. under Section 5 of Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Upkram (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1978 (for short Act of 1978) seeking suspension/stay of the further proceedings in the present company petition till 15.6.2016.
(2.)OLR 17/2015 has been filed by the OL with a grievance that the management of the respondent-Company is not providing the details of the assets in terms of the order dated 7.4.2015.
(3.)In brief, this Company Petition has been filed for winding up of the respondent-Company under Section 433(e) & (f) read with Section 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. This Court vide order dated 1.10.2014 had admitted the company petition and vide order dated 7.4.2015 had appointed the Provisional Liquidator on certain terms and had permitted the petitioner publication of the Company Petition in terms of Rule 24 and 96 of the Company (Court) Rules. Since the direction issued by this Court on 7.4.2015 were not complied with, therefore, OLR 17/2015 was filed by the OL and at this stage respondent Company had filed the application under Section 5 of the Act of 1978 seeking stay of the proceedings.
(2.)OLR 17/2015 has been filed by the OL with a grievance that the management of the respondent-Company is not providing the details of the assets in terms of the order dated 7.4.2015.
(3.)In brief, this Company Petition has been filed for winding up of the respondent-Company under Section 433(e) & (f) read with Section 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. This Court vide order dated 1.10.2014 had admitted the company petition and vide order dated 7.4.2015 had appointed the Provisional Liquidator on certain terms and had permitted the petitioner publication of the Company Petition in terms of Rule 24 and 96 of the Company (Court) Rules. Since the direction issued by this Court on 7.4.2015 were not complied with, therefore, OLR 17/2015 was filed by the OL and at this stage respondent Company had filed the application under Section 5 of the Act of 1978 seeking stay of the proceedings.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.