Gujarat High Court
Ppg Asian Paints Pvt.Ltd vs Eagle Motors Private Limited on 29 September, 2017
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
O/OJMCA/100/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 100 of 2017
In COMPANY PETITION NO. 413 of 2015
==========================================================
PPG ASIAN PAINTS PVT.LTD.....Applicant(s)
Versus
EAGLE MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRIYANK DAVE FOR MR. JAIMIN R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR GAURAV LAKHWANI FOR MR ANAND B GOGIA, ADVOCATE for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date : 29/09/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. This application has been preferred by the applicant (original petitioner) for the revival of Company Petition No.413 of 2015, in accordance with the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by this Court.
2. The abovementioned petition had been preferred under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, interalia, on the grounds that the present respondent, Eagle Motors Private Limited, is unable to pay its admitted dues and had acknowledged its liability in the ordinary course. The total amount due to the applicant is Rs.30,00,000/.
Page 1 of 4
HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Oct 07 08:43:25 IST 2017
O/OJMCA/100/2017 ORDER
3. The petition was listed and was heard from time to time. As recorded in the order dated 05.05.2017, Mr.Jaimin R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate for the respondent, had jointly submitted Consent Terms dated 05.02.2017, signed by the authorised signatories of the petitioner and the respondent Company and learned counsel for the respective parties. As per the Consent Terms, the petitioner Company accepted the amount of Rs.18,00,000/ towards the full and final settlement of all the claims raised in the abovementioned petition. On the basis of the Consent Terms, Mr.Jaimin R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, had withdrawn the petition with liberty to revive it, in case of difficulty.
4. It is stated in the present application that the Consent Terms have been breached by the respondent. In spite of the lapse of a sufficient period of time even after the breach and several opportunities being available to fulfil the said Consent Terms, the amount of Rs.18,00,000/ agreed upon in the Consent Terms has not been paid. Hence, as per the liberty granted by this Court by the order dated 05.05.2017, the petition Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Oct 07 08:43:25 IST 2017 O/OJMCA/100/2017 ORDER be permitted to be revived.
5. This Court has heard Mr. Priyank Dave, learned advocate for Mr.Jaimin R. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.Gaurav Lakhwani, learned advocate for Mr.Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate for the respondent and perused the averments made in the application.
6. The fact that the parties entered into Consent Terms wherein it was agreed upon that Rs.18,00,000/ would be paid by the respondent to the petitioner towards the full and final settlement of all the claims of the petitioner Company, as stated in the petition, is not disputed. It is equally not disputed that even after the passing of the order dated 05.05.2017, permitting the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to revive it, the respondent had tendered a cheque amounting to Rs.18,00,000/ to the petitioner on 30.05.2017, which has been dishonoured on 01.06.2017 on the ground of "Insufficient Funds". It, therefore, transpires that in fact, not even a rupee has been effectively paid by the respondent to the petitioner in fulfilment of the Consent terms. Even Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Oct 07 08:43:25 IST 2017 O/OJMCA/100/2017 ORDER after the filing of the present application, sufficient opportunity has been granted to the respondent to pay the amount.
7. Today, Mr.Gaurav Lakhwani, learned advocate for Mr.Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate for the respondent, has submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
8. In view of the fact that the Consent Terms between the petitioner and the respondent Company have not been honoured by the respondent and as, by the order dated 05.05.2017, passed in Company Petition No.413 of 2015, liberty has been reserved to the present applicant (original petitioner) to revive the petition, this Court deems it just and proper to pass the following order:
Company Petition No.413 of 2015 stands revived.
9. The application is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Oct 07 08:43:25 IST 2017