IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Co.Appeal.No. 24 of 2009()
1. JYOMAN BUILDERS PVT.LTD, NAMBIAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. B.SARATCHANDRA DAS, NADUVATH,
... Respondent
2. M/S.BENZ AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD,
3. ANUJAN THOMAS, CHORATHIL HOUSE,
4. SUSY ANUJAN THOMAS, CHORATHIL HOUSE,
5. V.A.KUNJU, 68/301, MAITRI CO-OPERATIVE
6. H.PARAMESWARAN, HARI NIVAS,
7. LESLI PALLATH, S/O.JOSEPH PALLATH,
8. THOMAS GEORGE, KANIANTETHU HOUSE,
9. M.C.NADHI, 105, CANAL ROAD, GIRINAGAR,
10. MNB NAIR, SHANKERS, PARAPPILLY ROAD,
11. EPHARIM P MAMBILLY, AGED 50,
12. GIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,
13. V.K.SANKARANKUTTY, S/O.O.G.MENON,AGED 57
14. M.JAYASANKAR, S/O.V.K.SANKARANKUTTY,
15. VARGHESE K JOSEPH, S/O.K.K.JOSEPH,
16. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, S/O.I RAMASWAMY IYYER
17. S.KAMALAKSHY AMMAL, W/O.R.LAKSHMI
18. VIJAYA SUNDERESH, W/O.R.SUNDERESH,
19. ANTONY KOTTACKAL, S/O.P.K.M PILLAI.
20. ............
21. R.N.SHARMA,S/O.LATE C RAGHAVA IYYER,
22. ISAAC KURIAN, S/O.P.KURIAN ISAAC, AGED
23. J.M.AVENUE FLAT ALLOTEE'S ASSOCIATION,
24. INDUS ADVERTISING & MARKETING
25. A.GEETHA, D/O.KAMALAM, NO.49,
26. SAROJ STEELS PVT. LTD, 29/1219A,
27. T.K.ELIAS, S/O.MATHAI KURIAN,
28. K.MURALEEDHARA RAO, DOOR NO.37.3052,
29. K.NAGAVENI, DOOR NO.37/3052,
30. J.M.PALACE APARTMENT OWNERS WELFARE
31. E.JOSEPH SIMON, S/O.JOSEPH, ELANJIKKAL
32. SREELA JOSHY, NO.5A, J.M.TOWERS,
33. GEORGE AUGUSTINE, S/O.K.K.JOHN,
34. ROSAMMA GEORGE, W/O.AUGUSTINE, BUILDING
35. V.R.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN,
36. LATHA S UNNITHAN, W/O.V.R.SASIDHARAN
37. P.V.SATHYAN, S/O.K.K.VASUDEVAN,
38. GEETHA, W/O.P.V.SATHYAN, BUILDING NO.69,
39. GRACY AUGUSTINE, W/O.C.K.AUGUSTINE,
40. SHELTOM LAPORTE, S/O.ALOSCIOUS
41. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD, REP. BY ITS
42. THANKAMMA JOSEPH, W/O.JOPSEPH CHACKO,
43. THANAKAMMA R MENON, W/O.KPR MENON,
44. SADASIVAN K NAIR, S/O.KUNJU NAIR,
45. M.RAM DINESH, ASST. MANAGER,
46. UMA SARATHCHANDRAN, W/O.DR.K.P.SARATH-
47. N.SASIKUMAR,M S/O.LATE P.NEELAKANDA
48. P.O.DEVVASSYKUTTY,S/O.P.D.OUSEPH,
49. GEETHA VIJAYAN, W/O.VIJAYAN, FLAT NO.6G,
50. SREEVIDYA SURESH, W/O.R.SURESH,
51. DR. SAJITHA KUMAR, W/O.D.BABURAJAN, AGED
52. B.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.P.KUMAR, AGED 37,
53. JM TRIBUTES BUILDING ALLOTTEES
54. MOHANAN PILLAI, S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI,
55. G.H.ASSOCIATES MAHAKAVI BHARATHIYAR
56. M/S.ANUROOPA STONE FLOORINGS, TD ROAD,
57. SYNDICATE BANK, HOUSING FINANCE BRANCH,
58. BEENA SEBASTIAN, D/O.K.T.SEBASTIAN,
59. SAPNA GOKULDAS, W/O.GOKULDAS,
60. K.P.VASUDEVAN NAIR, A69, KALYAN NAGER,
61. RAJAMMA V NAIR, A69, KALYAN NAGER,
62. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, BROADWAY BRANCH,
63. CSK TUBE COMPANY, REP. BY ITS PARTNER
64. COL. K.T.MOHAN, S/O.LATE N.K.THAMBI,
65. SHAILAJA MOHAN, W/O. LTD. COL.K.T.MOHAN,
66. SREEKUKMAR K., S/O.K.RAMACHANDRAN,
67. KALYANI SREEKUKMAR, W/O.SREEKUKMAR ,
68. VIKAS M WARRIER, S/O.M.R.WARRIER,
69. PHILIP DEVASSIA, W/O.K.P.DEVASSIA, AGED
70. R.RAMESH CHANDRAN, S/O.M.K.RAMACHANDRAN,
71. ANITHA PARAMWSWARAN, W/O.RAMESH CHANDRAN
72. B.RAVEENDRAN ANIR, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :19/11/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
...............................................................................
COMPANY APPEAL Nos. 24 & 25 OF 2009
.........................................................................
Dated this the 19th November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
P.R. Raman, J:
Appellants in both the Company Appeals are aggrieved by
the order passed by the learned Company Judge on 13th
October, 2009 ordering publication of Company Petition for
winding up as a further step under Rule 96 of the Company
(Court)Rules. Appellant in C.O.A.No.24 of 2009 is the first
respondent (the company sought to be wound up) in C.P.No. 37
of 1998 and appellant (Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd.)in
C.O.A.No.25 of 2009 is a third party. ( They have filed
C.A.No.475 of 2009 for getting themselves impleaded as
additional respondent in C.P.No.37 of 1998).
2. It is admitted by the parties that advertisement has
already been effected pursuant to the orders issued. Since the
COMPANY APPEAL Nos. 24 & 25 OF 2009
2
only prayer is being against the impugned order, this relief has
become infructuous.
3. In the course of arguments, it was pointed out that even
after the advertisement, further proceedings could be stayed by
this court, but we do not find any justifiable reason to do so.
But according to the appellants various steps taken to settle the
creditors’ claims are still pending and that C.A.No. 317 of 2009
is one such application (Annexure-VII). Likewise Sterling Estates
and Properties Limited got themselves impleaded in C.A.No.221
of 2007 by order in C.A.No.97 of 2008. Thereafter, they had
filed Company Application No.475 of 2009 for getting themselves
impleaded as respondent in C.P.No. 37 of 1998 (Annexure -XII).
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the GIC Housing
Finance, Adv.Shri K. Jaju Babu submits that there is an
agreement between GIC Housing Finance and Sterling Estates
and Properties Ltd., for sale of 22 flats earmarked for them in
the manner agreed to between the parties.
5. The learned Counsel Adv. Shri Jacob Mathew Manalil
representing the applicant in C.A.No. 676 of 2007 submits that
COMPANY APPEAL Nos. 24 & 25 OF 2009
3
he has claim over one of the flats in the same building where 22
flats are earmarked for GIC Housing Finance and that he only
wants his claim to be satisfied. Adv. Shri N. Dharmadan, learned
Sr. Counsel appearing for 31st respondent in C.O.A.No.24 of 2009
(32nd respondent in C.O.A.No.25 of 2009) submits that he has
claim for a sum of about Rs. One crore and it has not been
disposed of by the Company Court. The Receiver appointed
by this Court was also heard. According to him, pursuant to the
order passed in Company Appeal 14 of 2009, various claims
submitted by the parties have been cataloged and submitted in
the form of a report and orders are awaited.
6. What we gather from the submissions made by the
parties is that everybody wants a settlement, if possible. At the
same time, they cannot wait for an indefinite period. Their
apprehension is that if the Company under liquidation is ordered
to be wound up, without considering different claims and
suggestions made by the parties for an amicable settlement, it
will not be in the interest of anybody concerned. In view of the
fact that advertisement has already been effected and winding up
COMPANY APPEAL Nos. 24 & 25 OF 2009
4
order is yet to be passed by the learned Company Judge, the
proposal for an amicable settlement could be examined and
orders passed thereon before passing final orders in the winding
up petition.
P.R. RAMAN,
JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk