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 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Uluberia Metaliks Pvt. Ltd vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd on 6 July, 2015

Author: Sanjib Banerjee

Bench: Sanjib Banerjee

O-48
                                  CP No.250 of 2013

                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                           Original Jurisdiction
                               ORIGINAL SIDE


                                        ULUBERIA METALIKS PVT. LTD.

                                                  -And-

                                        KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

                                                                         Appearance:
                                                            Mr. A. D. Banerjee, Adv.
                                                              ...for the petitioner.

                                                            Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.
                                                                 ...for the company.

   BEFORE:
   The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE

Date : July 6, 2015.

The Court : The company says that in view of the admitted position that the statutory notice was not served on the company, the present petition for winding up the company at the behest of an alleged creditor should not be received.

It appears that the statutory notice was attempted to be served on the company at its registered office, but was returned with the endorsement "left". However, the company received the papers pertaining to this petition at its same registered office and the company says that earlier correspondence addressed to its registered office have been received by the company.

Since it is evident that the statutory notice was not received by the company and there is some doubt as to whether such 2 service was effectively attempted, the jurisdictional fact for entertaining a creditor's winding-up petition is not established.

As a consequence, C.P.No.250 of 2013 is permanently stayed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to pursue its claim, including filing a fresh company petition, if it is otherwise so entitled.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) A/s.