9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or, Madras to contest the suit at Delhi in view of the shortage of the funds of the Company in liquidation M/s.Rayalaseema Commodities Limited and has agreed to make the initial deposit of ₹ 3,00,000/- subject to the account of the same being furnished by the said Official Liquidator before the Hon'ble Company Judge as well as to the appellant / plaintiff. We consider it appropriate to consider the said request of the appellant / plaintiff. The appellant / plaintiff is directed make a deposit of ₹ 3,00,000/- by way of a Demand Draft in favour of the Official Liquidator, Madras within a period of three weeks from today, after obtaining due acknowledgement thereof. The account of the expenses incurred for the same and furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... storing this suit, the same shall stand transferred to the file of this Court to try the same along with C.P.No.303 of 2010. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Raghunathan submitted that the appellant / plaintiff M/s. OMCE JORDAN is aggrieved only by the 3rd direction of the Hon'ble Company Judge in the order dated 19.04.2018, directing the transfer of the C.S.(OS) No.1719 of 2009 pending on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Delhi to Madras High Court and to be tried along with C.P.No.303 of 2010. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, the second defendant in the Original Suit in C.S.(OS).No.1719 of 2009 viz., Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, Director of the Company in liquidation M/s. Rayalaseema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Application before the Hon'ble Company Judge and seek approval to furnish the accounts of the expenses incurred by them to contest the suit before the Delhi High Court, before the learned Company Judge as well as the appellant/plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Raghunathan submitted that the prayer for the transfer of the suit was not made either by the appellant or the Official Liquidator before the Company Judge and as far as the other two directions are concerned, they have no grievance, but only against the transfer of the suit from Delhi High Court to Madras High Court, the appellant has some grievance. 9. Having heard the submissions of both sides, we are of the opinion that, to have smooth and proper tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order dated 19.04.2018 granting leave to the appellant / plaintiff to proceed with the suit C.S.(OS) No.1719 of 2009 on the file of the Delhi High Court subject to the appropriate orders to be passed by the Delhi High Court, we modify only the direction No.3. 12. It was brought to our notice that the Delhi High Court in its order dated 31.05.2012 vide Para No.48 has also observed as under : 48. The case of the defendant No.2 would fall in the proposition o.(c) (e). Accordingly, application of defendant No.1 (I.A.No.15834/2009) is partly allowed and defendant No.1 is granted leave on the condition of deposit of 50% of the suit amount with the Registrar General of this Court by 15th August, 2012. 13. The Official Liquidator, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
