TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the concerned company court. In sum the liquidator had to be in seisin of the proceedings. The arbitration proceedings initiated by the decree holder commenced only on 14.03.2007 after this court appointed an arbitrator. The award which, as indicated above, was an ex-parte award, was passed on 23.05.2012 when the official liquidator, attached to the Madras High Court was still in seisin of the affairs of the judgment debtor company, albeit, under the supervision of the Madras High Court. The instant ex-parte award dated 23.05.2012 cannot be enforced against the judgment debtor. Accordingly, execution proceedings are closed - EX.P. 177/2015 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2019 - MR. RAJIV SHAKDHER J. Decree Holder Through : Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for appointment of an arbitrator. 6. The amalgamated entity (i.e. EFL), it appears, had applied for and was granted permission to change its name to MCC Finance Ltd. The change of name occurred on 23.05.1997. 6.1 Apparently, on 21.08.2000, the winding up proceedings were initiated against MCC Finance Ltd. These proceedings were instituted in Madras High Court. The Madras High Court on that date, i.e. 21.08.2000, appointed the official liquidator attached to it as the provisional liquidator. 7. Consequent thereto, on 03.08.2001, a winding up order was passed qua MCC Finance Ltd. As a result of which, next steps were taken in the matter by the Madras High Court qua MCC Finance Ltd. including appointment of an admin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.05.2012. Finally, the award metamorphosed into a decree by virtue of the orders passed by this court on 24.03.2014 and 17.12.2014. It appears that in and about July, 2018, the decree holder became aware of the SOA and the subsequent events, to which I have made a reference hereinabove. 12. Accordingly, an application was moved for seeking amendment in the memo of parties. It is in this backdrop that the judgment debtor/Mercantile Ventures Ltd. was brought into picture. 13. The principal objection taken on behalf of the judgment debtor i.e. Mercantile Ventures Ltd. is that the arbitration proceedings were continued against it while winding up proceedings were ensuing without obtaining leave of the court, as was required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding up order was passed by the Madras High Court on 03.08.2001. Mr. Sachdeva also does not and, perhaps, cannot dispute the fact that the Madras High Court had sanctioned the SOA on 17.04.1997 when FFSL along with two other entities, referred to hereinabove, merged into EFL which later on morphed into Mercantile Ventures Ltd. i.e. the judgment debtor. 15. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, what cannot be disputed, to my mind, by Mr. Sachdeva, is the fact that after the Madras High Court had appointed a liquidator qua the judgment debtor company, the arbitration could have only proceeded further with the permission of the concerned company court. In sum the liquidator had to be in seisin of the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
