Calcutta High Court
Zahid Dilnawaz vs M/S. Rmc Readymix (India) & Anr on 22 November, 2016
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
ACO 193 of 2015
APOT 503 of 2015
CP 1127 of 2014
ZAHID DILNAWAZ
Versus
M/S. RMC READYMIX (INDIA) & ANR.
And
ACO 194 of 2015
APOT 504 of 2015
CP 19 of 2014
ZAHID DILNAWAZ
Versus
M/S. SHRI BADRINARAIN ALLOYS AND STEELS LTD.
And
ACO 195 of 2015
APOT 505 of 2015
CP 871 of 2014
ZAHID DILNAWAZ
Versus
LAFARGE AGGREGATES & CONCRETE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
And
ACO 196 of 2015
APOT 506 of 2015
CP 712 of 2014
ZAHID DILNAWAZ
Versus
M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. (RMC DIVISION) & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 22nd November, 2016.
2
Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee, Adv.... for Appellant
Mr. Joydeep Roy, Adv...for respondent in APOT 503 of 2015
Mr. D. N. Sharma, Adv. with Mr. G. Khaitan, Adv...for petitioning creditor in CP 403 of 2014 Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv. with Mr. R.K. Rai, Adv. and Mr. Anunoy Basu, Adv. ..for respondent in APOT 505/2015 Mr. Tapas Coomar Dey, Adv...for respondent no.5 in APOT 506/2015 Mr. Victor Dutta, Adv....for PNB Mrs. Ruma Sikdar, Adv. and Mr.Aninda Bhattacharya, Adv...for Official Liquidator. The Court : Mrs. Sikdar, learned advocate appearing for the Official Liquidator, submitted that without leave of Court, the company, which was directed to be wound up and which is also the appellant before us, has withdrawn a sum of Rs.23 lakhs. She added that the costs and charges, incurred by the Official Liquidator for posting security guards, have not as yet been paid. Learned advocate appearing for the company/appellant submitted that such costs and charges shall be paid once bills are submitted. The learned advocate for the company submitted that after the order for winding up was passed, the company has entered into a settlement with the petitioning creditors. That however, does not appear to be wholly true because Mr. Sharma, learned advocate appearing for one of the petitioning creditors in CP 403 of 2014 submitted that his claim has not been settled. He also questioned the process of settlement after the order of winding up was passed. His client shall have a right of audience at the time of hearing of the appeal any further. Mrs. Sikdar prayed for adjournment of the matter for two weeks. The respondents have no objection.
In that view of the matter, let it be listed after two weeks.
(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, CJ.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sm