Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Sep 02, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1085474

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1085474
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Harish Tandon
Decided On: Sep 02, 2013
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

.....the same is true and correct copy of the original. the learned advocate appearing for the official liquidator however did not dispute correctness of the copy. a copy of the order dated 08th april 2003 is handed over by the learned advocate appearing for the official liquidator which was passed on the said application i.e.c.a.no.116 of 2003. the petitioning creditor says that the copy of the said order is already annexed to the present application and, therefore, the said order may be accepted and be directed to form part of the reconstructed record of c.a.no.116 of 2003. the office is directed to accept the copy submitted by the petitioner and shall also include the order dated 08th april 2003 therein. the office shall reconstruct the file in the manner as indicated above. at this stage the learned advocate appearing for the official liquidator submits that the information downloaded from the website of the ministry of corporate affairs reveals that there has been a charge created in favour of the united bank of india and industrial development bank of india which a still subsisting. from the report of the chairman, it appears that one of the unsecured creditors has opposed the scheme. the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this application upon the secured creditors and the creditors in whose favour charge is created which is still subsisting and upon the said unsecured creditors who opposed in a meeting convened by the chairperson in terms of the order of this court. the letter containing the copy of this petition shall sufficiently indicate that this matter shall appear two weeks hence. in addition, the petitioner is also directed to serve the copy of the application upon the central government through the regional director, ministry of corporate affairs.eastern region, kolkata. sbi (harish tandon, j.)

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET CA 36.OF 201.BIFR 19 OF 198.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : M/S NIPHA STEELS LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date :

2. d September, 2013.

Appearance : Ms.R.Kajaria, Adv.Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Saptarshi Mukherjee, Adv.… for Nipha Exports (P)LTD.and unsecured creditors No.2.G.D.

Shah 3.

M.C.Shah 4.

Nipha India (P) LTD.5.

Nipha Sales 6.

P.K.Shah.

Mr.S.N.

Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Debangsu Basak, Adv.Ms.Smita Das De, Adv.The Court : At the outset it is pointed out by Mr.Mukherjee that the number of the BIFR proceeding has been wrongly recorded in the application i.e.C.A.No.116 of 2003 as well as in the present application.

He seeks for leave to correct the same.

Leave is granted.

Learned advocate on record of the petitioner is directed to correct the number of the BIFR proceeding here and now.

Perused the lay note of the Registrar, Original Side.

It is indicated that despite the best effort, the records relating to C.A.116 of 2003 could not be traced out.

It is further indicated that a permission may be granted to reconstruct the said record.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner however, files a copy of the said application duly certified at the bottom of each page showing that the same is true and correct copy of the original.

The learned advocate appearing for the official liquidator however did not dispute correctness of the copy.

A copy of the order dated 08th April 2003 is handed over by the learned advocate appearing for the official liquidator which was passed on the said application i.e.C.A.No.116 of 2003.

The petitioning creditor says that the copy of the said order is already annexed to the present application and, therefore, the said order may be accepted and be directed to form part of the reconstructed record of C.A.No.116 of 2003.

The office is directed to accept the copy submitted by the petitioner and shall also include the order dated 08th April 2003 therein.

The office shall reconstruct the file in the manner as indicated above.

At this stage the learned advocate appearing for the official liquidator submits that the information downloaded from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs reveals that there has been a charge created in favour of the United Bank of India and Industrial Development Bank of India which a still subsisting.

From the report of the chairman, it appears that one of the unsecured creditors has opposed the scheme.

The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this application upon the secured creditors and the creditors in whose favour charge is created which is still subsisting and upon the said unsecured creditors who opposed in a meeting convened by the chairperson in terms of the order of this Court.

The letter containing the copy of this petition shall sufficiently indicate that this matter shall appear two weeks hence.

In addition, the petitioner is also directed to serve the copy of the application upon the Central Government through the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate AffaiRs.Eastern Region, Kolkata.

SBI (HARISH TANDON, J.)

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2013 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Harish Tandon