Reserve Bank of India, Represented herein by its General Manager vs Kirloskar Investments and Finance Ltd

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(Kar) 1104

SUBHASH B.ADI
Reserve Bank of India, Represented herein by its General Manager – Appellant
Versus
Kirloskar Investments and Finance Ltd – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s King & Partridge, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S.J. Sanghavi ACGSC, Poovaiah & Co., Advs. for Respondent Committee; Holla & Holla, Advs; M/s Tukaram S Pai, Advs. for applicants in CA1024/2005; Aditya Sondhi, Adv. for Ex. Management; Veena Jadhav, Adv. for ROC; Sreenivasa Assts., Advor applicant in CA 665/08; Sreenivasa Rao Adv. for R-11 & R-19 in CA.665/08; Prabha Murthy, Adv. for appellant in CA.613/2008; Saji. P.John, Adv. for applicant in CA.611/09; S.Krishna Murthy, Adv. for Objector; P.B.Appaiah, Adv. for applicant in CA.937/09 & 60/10.

Judgment :-

1. Company Petition No.2/2000 under Section 45MC of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (in short referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Part VII of the Companies Act is filed for This winding up of Company and for appointment of Official Liquidator by the Reserve Bank of India.

2. Company Petition Nos.260/1999, 261/1999, 259/1999, 258/1999, 257/1999, 214/1999 and 262/1999 are all by the depositors for winding up of Company under Section 439 read with Section 433(e) & (f) further read with Section 434 of the Companies Act.

3. Company Petition Nos.118/2005, 116/2005 and 117/2005 are by the holders of Redeemable Cumulative Preference shares. These petitions are filed under Section 433 (e) and (f) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act for winding up of respondent –company.

4. Depositors claim that they had deposited an amount of `1,00,000/- 10.6.1998 and the said amount is not refunded even after its maturity. Depositors had issued statutory notice on 8.7.1999, which was received by the Company on 27.7.1999, despite the receipt of notice, the Company has not made the payment, it has become incapable of paying the deposited amount whereas the holders of Redeemable Cum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(Kar) 1104

SUBHASH B.ADIReserve Bank of India, Represented herein by its General Manager – AppellantVersusKirloskar Investments and Finance Ltd – Respondent

SUBHASH B.ADI
Reserve Bank of India, Represented herein by its General Manager – Appellant
Versus
Kirloskar Investments and Finance Ltd – Respondent