Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Official Liquidator,Calcutta vs Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam on 4 May, 2023

Samsul Huda Laskar vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 7 July, 2025

(37) In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), the specific provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 were in consideration of the Court whereas reliance placed by the respondent as regards the case of Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam (supra) is a misplaced reliance in so far as the liability as Official Liquidator is not an issue agitated or determinable in the instant writ petition.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

British India Corporation Ltd vs Official Liquidator And Another on 20 December, 2024

7. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the official liquidator has supported the impugned order and submitted that Rule 154 of the Company(Court) Rules, 1959 does not empowers for accepting the claim of post winding up. He further submitted that the appellant has voluntarily paid the dues to the secured creditors without any authority of law. In turn, he submitted that payment have been made without leave of the Company Court and the appellant have failed to bring on record any such order. He further submitted that in the present case, the appellant has not purchased any property sold by the Official Liquidator on which some tax or fee was required to be paid. He submitted that there was neither any conditions nor any terms which was not clearly disclosed by the Official Liquidator for which the payments made by the appellant on its own, due to which the they suffered. He further submitted that it is not a case of the appellant that some statutory provisions were there under which the company in liquidation was required to pay but paid by the appellant on some direction of this Court, therefore, the judgements as relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is of no aid to the appellant as in that case under the statutory law, the tax which was payable by the company in liquidation, was claimed by Nagar Nigam, after the date of purchase, therefore, in view of the facts of that case, the Court has made observation in favour of the buyer. He further submitted that in the present case, the appellant has not brought on record any such condition or agreement or order. He further submitted that any observation made in the aforesaid judgements has to be looked into with reference to the context in which it has been made. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P Agrawal - Full Document

British India Corporation Ltd vs Official Liquidator And Another on 11 February, 2025

7. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the official liquidator has supported the impugned order and submitted that Rule 154 of the Company(Court) Rules, 1959 does not empowers for accepting the claim of post winding up. He further submitted that the appellant has voluntarily paid the dues to the secured creditors without any authority of law. In turn, he submitted that payment have been made without leave of the Company Court and the appellant have failed to bring on record any such order. He further submitted that in the present case, the appellant has not purchased any property sold by the Official Liquidator on which some tax or fee was required to be paid. He submitted that there was neither any conditions nor any terms which was not clearly disclosed by the Official Liquidator for which the payments made by the appellant on its own, due to which the they suffered. He further submitted that it is not a case of the appellant that some statutory provisions were there under which the company in liquidation was required to pay but paid by the appellant on some direction of this Court, therefore, the judgements as relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is of no aid to the appellant as in that case under the statutory law, the tax which was payable by the company in liquidation, was claimed by Nagar Nigam, after the date of purchase, therefore, in view of the facts of that case, the Court has made observation in favour of the buyer. He further submitted that in the present case, the appellant has not brought on record any such condition or agreement or order. He further submitted that any observation made in the aforesaid judgements has to be looked into with reference to the context in which it has been made.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P Agrawal - Full Document

M/S Enbee Plantation Ltd. vs Utkarsh Agrawal on 1 April, 2026

Learned counsel for the petitioner for the intervener had argued that in view of judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Official Liquidator vs. Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam & others (2023) 7 SCR 1082, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that liability on account of property tax and water tax claimed by the concerned authority, which is a post-liquidation liability, is obligatory upon the OL to discharge in view of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 4/4/2026 12:21:26 PM 3 COMP-3-2003 operation of Companies Court Rules, 1959. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1