ORDER :

GA 3 of 2022

1. The plaintiff has filed the instant application for amendment in the plaint by deleting the name of the defendant no. 1 by substituting the name of the Liquidator of the defendant no. 1 in the cause title as well as in the plaint. The Counsel for the plaintiff submits that during the pendency of the suit, one of the creditor of the defendant no. 1 had initiated a proceeding before the National Company Law Tribunal against the defendant no. 1 and the National Company Law Tribunal has initially appointed one Surendra Kumar Agarwal as Liquidator and the said Liquidator of the defendant no. 1 and the said Liquidator had issued public announcement on 15.01.2021 calling upon the stockholders to file their claims along with supporting documentary evidence. Subsequently, Sri Surendra Kumar Agarwal was substituted by a new Liquidator namely, Krishna Kumar Chhaparia, on the basis of the announcement of the Liquidator, the plaintiff has also raised claim but initially the Liquidator had rejected the claim of the plaintiff and being aggrieved with the said order of the Liquidator, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal and accordingly the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and accordingly the defendant no. 1 has filed his claim before the Liquidator.

2. Now, the plaintiff submits that as the Liquidator has been appointed by the NCLT and as such by deleting the name of the defendant no. 1, the name of the Liquidator is to be substituted in place of defendant no. 1.

3. Perused the application, order passed by the NCLT and other documents. Admittedly, a Liquidator has been appointed in place of the defendant no. 1, and the defendant no. 1 had also filed his claim before the Liquidator and thus this Court finds that the prayer made by the plaintiff is required to be allowed. In view of the above prayers (a) to (e) of the Master’s summon are allowed.

4. GA 3 is disposed of.

GA 4 of 2022

5. Mr. Krishna Kumar Chhaparia, Liquidator of the defendant no.1 appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal has filed the instant application praying for dismissal of the suit and release of Bank Guarantees submitted by the defendant no. 1 before the Registrar of this Court in terms of the order passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 745 of 2013, dt. 11th September, 2015.

6. The plaintiff company had initially filed an application for winding up against the defendant no.1 company being Company Petition No. 745 of 2013 before this Court on account of default in payment of dues. The said company petition was disposed of by this Court on 11th September, 2015 by passing the following order :

“This opportunity is given to the company upon their furnishing a bank guarantee securing the entire claim of the petitioning creditor till 20th November 2013, for Rs. 37,49,329/-. The company will furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lakhs in favour of the Registrar, Original Side, by 30th September, 2015. It will furnish bank guarantees of Rs. 5 lakhs each by the end of every quarter, the first quarter ending on 31st December 2015 in a similar manner to the Registrar, Original Side. The last bank guarantee may be of the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. The company will be furnished upon intimation to the petitioning creditor.

The petitioning creditor will have to file a suit by 23rd November, 2015. If the suit is not filed by the petitioning creditor, the bank guarantee will be discharged and returned to the company. If there is default in furnishing any of the bank guarantees, the winding up application may be activated by application before this Court for immediate admission. Upon the bank guarantees being furnished, the petitioning creditor will have to prove its above claim in the suit to be filed by them.”

7. In compliance of the Order dt. 11th September, 2015, the defendant company had furnished bank guarantee of Rs. 43,00,000/-by way of fixed deposit of State Bank Of India with auto renewal before the Regist