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 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Veena Industries Ltd vs Huawei Telecommunication (India) ... on 14 May, 2019

Author: Rajiv Narain Raina

Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina

                                            1
CA-10-2019 in
CP-99-2014




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH

                                            Date of decision: 14.05.2019

                                            CA-10-2019 in
                                            CP-99-2014

Veena Industries Ltd.                                         ...Petitioner

                                      Vs.

Huawei Telecommunication (India) Company Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:        Ms. Manisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate, with
                Mr. Sanjiv Dagar and Ms. Salina Chalana, Advocates,
                for the petitioner.

                Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate, with
                Mr. Gunjan Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (ORAL)

1. On the request of Ms. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, this petition under Sections 433 & 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent-company is transferred to National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh to be disposed of on merits, where Ms. Gandhi says her client has already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which is pending for 17.05.2019. Parties will be free to take all pleas as are available to them in law and also on the question of limitation.

2. On the other hand, Mr. Anand Chhibbar has entered a caveat. He says that he is not against the transfer, but the present petition should be ordered to have been rendered infructuous and dismissed as such. I have considered the argument, but I am not inclined to accept it for the reason that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact to be determined on the basis 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-06-2019 10:41:30 ::: 2 CA-10-2019 in CP-99-2014 of pleadings and proof. It would not be justified to foreclose the case of the petitioner in this Court and that aspect will be open to debate before the learned Tribunal on merits.

3. With these observations, while allowing CA No.10 of 2019, the main company petition i.e. CP No.99 of 2014 is ordered to be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal.

4. Office to take steps expeditiously for transfer of file to the quarters concerned.



14.05.2019                                           [RAJIV NARAIN RAINA]
Vimal                                                       JUDGE


                Whether speaking/reasoned:                Yes
                Whether Reportable:                       Yes/No




                                   2 of 2
                ::: Downloaded on - 09-06-2019 10:41:30 :::