Loading...
Responsive image

Lloyds Finance Limited vs Indiana Dairy Specialities … on 2 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Lloyds Finance Limited vs Indiana Dairy Specialities … on 2 December, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED TI-HS THE OZND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOI-IAN REIjVE"Yj.,

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 713 oF'..'2:'00é§: '   A I 
IN COMPANY PETITION N0. 4 oE~19'93'-._   

BETWEEN:

M/S. LLOYDS FINANCE LIMITEE
No.76, KASTURI COMPLEX   
MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE -27-.._ _
REGD. OFFICE AT:   
UNIT NO.3, GROUND FLOOR  :
RAHEJA CENTRE,' p_O1N';j  ''
MUMBAI--~--4~00 02jI'.._ '  _  -  ' ...APPLICANT

(BY KLKILAW A/s;IfA§vs'§)A»2.EE     A

AND:

  I ~   LTD. [IN LIQN)

_ A - REP.BY.fIHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
» y --. I A".['TACIj1ED_ TO THE HIGH COURT OF
' . MRNATA 

2 E' »._4"VM/S\,'IN3DESTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
 BANKOF INDIA, JANARDHAN TOWERS
I'F_L(DOR, 2 RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE ---- 25

 " r,4REI?.BY ITS MANAGER.  RESPONDENTS

DEEPAK 3: V JAYARAM, FOR OL)
‘ [BY M/S. KHAITAN & CO. ADV FOR R2)

‘E E’ * {R2 IS IMPLEADED VIDE C/O.DTD.5.6.08]

UK

I ‘Die. vtlie.a}:5p1icant thveflaforesaid assets,

2

THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 443(1)
OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 R/W RULE 9 OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 R/W RULE 9 OF THE COMPANIES
[COURU RULES, 1959 PRAYING TO DIRECT THE OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE RESPONDENT
TO MAKE OVER TO THE APPLICANT THE ASSETS VOF_TIjlE
PETITIONER MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN THE

HEREUNDER LYING IN THE PREMISES__;””O3€j_’

RESPONDENT.

THIS APPLICATION COMING .oiJ».FoR”§:’)fi1ji;’3i52.s; misc.’ I

DAY THE COURT MADE THE P’OLLiQWING:. * ‘ A
oagskgfl

This appiication is b3’/*.I.Ti0yds I”FirIiaiiceT2ELiiriited
claiming to be a 0f”tIIiIe: irililiauidation
for establishing of two at Dhenkeni

Kotta, Si5hai§£:iapTifi Tamil Nadu and
Buchiretiriy”PaIya:iii.;.’Neliigirbistrict. Andhra Pradesh, for

the relief of iiirec’tii*ig i;heTOfficial Liquidator to make over

,,..-

._ ‘I’?g5′:11~2009, the Oificial Liquidator was

I T . direcitedv’-.I:te”file a report as to whether he is in physical

T’~44fl.i)osisessibn of the Milk Chilling Plants. Although no

-I is filed, nevertheless the counsel for the Official

iii

3

Liquidator submits that the physical possession of the
two Chilling Plants were not either handed over to the

Official Liquidator nor was taken over by him.

3. There is no material on record to e_sta}oIislfi- .

existence of the two Milk Chilling. Plan_ts”‘or::’_’that it”

were handed over to the Officiial

direction issued by this sees es» wiihile i ”

winding up the Company. “in ‘ ”-~.,Cornpa11y E Petition
No.4/1998. Merely iivtpedtitioner has an
agreement foij lease and nothing

more cann0t.Vve§ren:L4’sjdg§e’st’remotedly that the Official

Liquidatour*.__is iii” _ee,sse§sien of the two Milk Chilling

“Application___is, accordingly, rejected.

sd/-

JUDGE

i.[f’»:/{st

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information