Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

M/S.Sonodyne Television Co.Ltd vs W.B.Housing Infrastructure ... on 6 February, 2017

Author: I.P. Mukerji

Bench: I. P. Mukerji

                                 ORDER SHEET
                             C.A. No. 288 of 2014
                                     With
                             C.P. No. 142 of 2010
                        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                            Original Jurisdiction
                                ORIGINAL SIDE


                       M/S.SONODYNE TELEVISION CO.LTD.
                                    Versus
            W.B.HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN. CO.LTD.


   BEFORE:
   The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI

Date : 6th February, 2017.

For HIDCO : Mr. Reetobroto Mitra with Mr. Bodhisatta Biswas & Ms. Prapa Ganguly, Advs. For Petitioning Creditor : Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury with Mr. Arif Ali & Mr. K.C. Das, Advs.

For Official Liquidator : Ms. Tanushree Dasgupta, Adv. DPS Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. is under liquidation. A plot of land, morefully described in the schedule at page 24 of the application, is claimed to be part of the assets of this company.

Now, this piece of land was obtained by the company in liquidation from HIDCO. HIDCO has made the present application (C.A. No. 288 of 2014) seeking leave of this Court under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to institute a suit to obtain repossession of the said plot of land on the ground that the company failed to use the land for the purposes for which it was granted (See page 20 of the application).

Mr. Choudhury appears for the petitioning creditor. His client has very serious objections to the claim of HIDCO. He also says that the suit would not be maintainable.

My point of view is that whatever may be the defence of the petitioning creditor, in the suit it may be taken in the written statement. But the objections, whether on the maintainability or merit of the suit, should not stand in the way of the litigant being granted the opportunity of 2 institution of a suit in a court of law. Afterall, the suit is not barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In that view of the matter, this application is allowed by granting leave as prayed for in prayer (a) of the Judge's Summons with the condition that the suit is to be instituted in this Court.

(I.P. MUKERJI, J.) K. Banerjee A.R. [C.R.]