Vgp case mhc full orderA.Nos/1586, 1587, 1589 and 1590 of 2021 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. Though the Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Vijay Narayan pressed for interim Order, particularly against appointment of a receiver, after hearing the parties, this Court is of the view that the main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the appointment of receiver not only in respect of the partnership firm but also the group of companies.

[5/28, 17:19] Sekarreporter1: O.P.Nos.310 to 313 of 2021
O.P. Nos.310 to 313 of 2021 &
A.Nos/1586, 1587, 1589 and 1590 of 2021
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Though the Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Vijay Narayan pressed for
interim Order, particularly against appointment of a receiver, after hearing the
parties, this Court is of the view that the main grievance of the petitioner is with
regard to the appointment of receiver not only in respect of the partnership firm
but also the group of companies.
2. It is the contention of the Senior Counsel Mr.Vijay Narayan that as far as
the group of companies is concerned, proceedings is pending before the NCLT
wherein an interim arrangement has been made and Senior Counsel
Mr.Omprakash has been appointed to monitor any sale of the property. Hence, it
is his contention that when the above proceedings is a subject matter of the NCLT,
if receiver is appointed, it would undo such an arrangement. The very claim in the
application itself is for dissolution of partnership firm. However, now the group
of companies and its assets have also been brought within the purview of the
award and the same is beyond the scope of reference in the present petition.
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
[5/28, 17:19] Sekarreporter1: O.P.Nos.310 to 313 of 2021
3. Mr.Karthik Seshadri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent has contended that the learned arbitrator has in fact taken note of the
factual aspects and considered the entire gamut of evidence and found that the
firm has to be dissolved and the arbitrator has given reasons for appointment of a
receiver. Hence, it is his contention that the receiver has to collect information
and data with regard to the sale of the property and who has to do the business of
the firm. What was sought by the receiver is only to collect information and data.
Hence, submitted that he is also ready to argue the main Original Petition itself
and no interim order is required.
4. The bone of contention of both sides before this Court is with regard to
the dissolution of the partnership firm. It is not disputed by both sides that the
partnership mainly consists of the family members. It is also brought on record
that apart from the partnership firm, there are few group of companies formed by
the family members. It is not disputed that as far as the company is concerned
there are proceedings before the NCLT and an interim arrangement has also been
made by a consent Order.
5. Senior Counsel Mr.Omprakash has been appointed as an observer to
oversee the sale of the properties of the companies. The learned Senior Counsel
2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
[5/28, 17:20] Sekarreporter1: O.P.Nos.310 to 313 of 2021
Mr.Vijay Narayan submits that as far as partnership firm is concerned they are
ready to give an undertaking not to deal with the partnership firm assets till the
Original Petition is disposed of and infact he is even prepared file an affidavit of
the petitioner not to alienate the properties of the partnership firm.
6. Having regard to the fact that all the group of companies have also been
included in the arbitral proceedings in respect of which a separate proceedings is
pending before the NCLT, this Court is of the view that as the receiver has already
taken charge as per the award. The receiver is advised to take inventories and
collect data in respect of the partnership firm alone. In respect of other company
properties, interim arrangement made before NCLT shall continue. It is made
clear that the applicant shall file an affidavit of undertaking not to alienate the
assets of the firm on or before 20.04.2021. It is also made clear that in case any
information or data is required by the receiver in respect of companies properties,
the petitioner shall provide the same to the receiver as an when required.
7. As both sides have agreed to argue the main Original Petition itself, post
the Original Petitions for final hearing on 09.06.2020.
16.04.2021
vrc
3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

You may also like...