9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y bonafides on the part of such applicants. Still either the same lawyer or the different lawyer with the same tenor of applications has kept on filing such applications with obviously the lack of particulars, the draft of Scheme or any good reason for moving such application at this belated stage or any measure taken to show their bonafide in the matter. The Official Liquidator prays before the Court that it is needed to finally dissolve the company in question as nothing more remains to be done. The learned counsels for Applicants still press for these kind of Applications. Therefore, this Court is left with no other option but, with sense of remorse and pain, to dismiss these Applications with exemplary costs and order that filing of such Applications is strongly discouraged and put to an end. - C.A.No.245/2018 C/W C.A.No.135/2017, 382/2017, 278/2018, 54/2018 in Co.P.No.3/1975 - - - Dated:- 27-9-2018 - Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. ORDER Mrs. Lakshmy Iyengar, Adv. for Official Liquidator Mr. Thomas V. Peter and Mr. Rakesh Bhatt, Advs. for Applicants The Official Liquidator filed CA No.54/2018 in COP No.3/1975 in this Court on 14.02.2018 seeking dissolution of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Creditor of the Company in liquidation was settled in full i.e., @ 100% for a sum of ₹ 3,14,61,026/-. A copy of order dated 13.11.2006 passed in OLR No.144/06 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure- D . 9. That vide OLR No.34/2008, the Official Liquidator had filed the settled list of contributories before the Hon ble Court and prayed for sanction to redeem the preferential share for a total sum of ₹ 17,35,000/- and also for return of capital to the equity shareholders for a total sum of ₹ 3,39,00,000/-. The said OLR was allowed vide order dated 07.02.2008. The Official Liquidator had paid the return of capital to equity shareholders and redeemed the preferential shares. The unclaimed capital was transferred to the Public Account of India vide challan No.29/2009-2010 dated 30.04.2009. A copy of order dated 07.02.2008 and Challan dated 30.04.2009 are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure- E F respectively. 10. That upon payment of dividend to the sole secured creditor i.e., State Bank of Mysore, redemption of preferential share and return of capital to the equity shareholders no fund is available to the credit of the company in liquidation a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hn through Mr. Rakesh Bhatt, Advocate on 27.09.2018 and CA No.382/2017 filed by the same person Mr. S.K. John through Smt. Shashikala K.C. on 15.11.2017. These applicants claiming to be the ex-shareholders/ promoters/directors of the company have approached this Court by way of these applications purportedly seeking leave to file some kind of Scheme or Arrangement for revival of the company. Except making a bald prayer in the company applications as aforesaid seeking leave of this Court to move a Scheme of Arrangement before this Court, no other Draft Scheme or concrete steps including any Deposit of some Earnest money to show their bonafides has been taken by the applicants. 8. The learned Official Liquidator brought to the notice of this Court in CA No.135/2017 the details of about 15 such company applications filed mostly by the same Advocate Mr. Thomas V. Peter from the year 2007 namely CA No.370/2007 uptill now on regular basis which came to be either withdrawn or disposed of or dismissed by the Company Judge. Thus, only CA No.135/2017 filed by Mr. Krishnamurthy, S/o late Mariswamy Gowda and CA No.382/2017 filed by Mr. S.K. John, S/o T.T. John remained pending which are bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THOMOS PETER Adv. PENDING CA 382/2017 S.K. Jhon S/o T.T. JHON Seeking permission to file a scheme of Arrangement Not available 21-Mar-13 CA 114/2013 SRI. KONDAL RAO M PURCHASE THOMOS PETER Adv. 23-Jul-13 CA 1508/2013 SRI KONDAL RAO M PURCHASE THOMOS PETER Adv. 20-Nov-14 CA 1076/2013 SRI KONDAL RAO M PURCHASE SUNDARAM Adv. 9. Mr. Thomas V. Peter, learned Advocate submitted before the Court that the applicant-Mr. Krishnamurthy is suffering from some medical condition of his Brain and looking to his medical conditions, the applicant may be permitted to withdraw and not press the present C.A.No.135/2017. 10. Mr. Rakesh Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing for applicant-Mr. S.K. John also submitted that the said applicant had filed similar application before the National Company Law Tribunal, at Bengaluru (NCLT) and since NCLT did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of such applicants. Still either the same lawyer or the different lawyer with the same tenor of applications has kept on filing such applications with obviously the lack of particulars, the draft of Scheme or any good reason for moving such application at this belated stage or any measure taken to show their bonafide in the matter. 15. Such abuse of process of law therefore deserves to be put down with the iron hands of justice. This Court is at little pain to hear the argument of Mr. Thomas V. Peter, learned Advocate that if a client approaches the lawyer for filing such application, the lawyer is bound to file such application. Plausible but not fair enough, the Advocates appearing in the Courts, under the Advocates Act 1961, have a dual role. While they are the spokespersons for their clients but at the same time, they have a responsibility as Officers of the Court towards the Court system itself. Knowing fully well that series of these kind of applications have already been dismissed by this Court in the same case, atleast the Court could expect a semblance of responsibility from the Advocates, who kept on filing such repeated applications, one after the other. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
