IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA COMPANY PETITION No.127/2013 BETWEEN:
BHARAT BIJLEE LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ELECTRIC MANSION 6TH FLOOR APPASAHEB MARATHE MARG PRABHADEVI MUMBAI 400 025 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND COMPANY SECRETARY DR. DURGESH N NAGARKAR (BY SRI SUSHEN S, ADV. FOR SRI MURALIDHARA C, ADV.) AND:
ABB LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KHANIJA BHAVAN 2ND FLOOR, EAST WING #49, RACECOURSE ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 (BY SRI KEERTHIKUMAR D NAIK, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 433[E] AND 433[F], R/W SECTIONS 434 AND 439[1][B] OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO WIND UP THE RESPONDENT COMPANY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the respondent-company be wound up under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act.
2. Though contentions are urged in the petition and the respondents have filed their objection statement, at this point in time, learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo dated 22.11.2017 enclosing thereto the details of the proceedings relating to the Commercial Suit No.138/2016. The same would indicate that the parties herein are also litigating in the said commercial suit which has been decreed in favour of the petitioners herein.The respondent however has filed an appeal against the judgment in the commercial suit.
3. Be that as it may, the order dated 14.11.2017 produced along with a memo would disclose that in view of the said position, the respondent herein has deposited a sum of Rs.4,34,24,838/- before the Commercial Court in terms of the order therein.
4. If that be the position, when the parties are litigating with regard to the very same claim and the respondents are seeking to challenge the order by depositing the amount in accordance with law, at this stage, it is not necessary to proceed further in this petition since in any event the petitioners would be entitled to the amount in the said proceedings, where they are litigating if the petitioner succeeds therein and the need to wind up the respondent will not arise.
5. Therefore on taking note of the said developments, the petition is liable to be disposed of as unnecessary at this stage. However, liberty is also reserved to the petitioners to seek revival of the petition, if the need arises at a subsequent stage.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms