SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
AIRBORNE EXPRESS (INDIA) PVT.LTD – Appellant
Versus
ELBEE SERVICES LTD – Respondent
CP 282/2004



ssm

sm

sm

IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY

ORDINARY

ORDINARY RIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

RIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

RIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

COMPNAY

COMPNAY

COMPNAY PETITION NO.282 OF

PETITION NO.282 OF

PETITION NO.282 OF 2004

2004

2004

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda

of Coram, appearances, Court’s

Orders or directions and

Registrar’s Orders

Court’s or Judge’s Orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. Niranjan Mogre i/by M/s.

Haresh Mehta & Co. for the

petitioners.

No appearance for the

respondents.

CORAM

CORAM

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

: ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

: ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

DATED

DATED

DATED : 12th July, 2007

: 12th July, 2007

: 12th July, 2007

P.C.

P.C.

P.C.

1. The petitioners have invoked

the provisions of Section 433 and

434 of the Companies Act-1956 for

Rs.10,68,430/- (Rupees ten lacs

sixty eight thousand four hundred

thirty only) which was

outstanding and due and payable

towards the service rendered by

the petitioner to the respondent.

A statutory notice as

contemplated under the Act was

issued on 10/03/2003. Though

served there was no reply of the

( 2 )

respondent company, therefore,

the present petition has been

filed on 11/07/2003.

2. On 25th February, 2005, this

Court has admitted the petition.

The petitioners have complied

with all the formalities

including of advertisement.

Affidavit of service dated 28th

June, 2006 is also the part of

the record.

3. There is no appearance or

resistance of any kind, on

record. The averments made in

the petition as well as the

demand notice in question,

remained uncontroverted.

4. The claim is also within

limitation.

5. Taking all this into the

account, the petition is allowed

( 3 )

in terms of prayer clause (a) and

(b).

6. Parties to take necessary

steps in accordance with law.

7. The petition is allowed.

[ANOOP

[ANOOP

[ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]

V. MOHTA, J.]

V. MOHTA, J.]

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top