Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
S. MURUGAN V/S M/S. KARUR VYSYA BANK LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER J. HARIHARAN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI & OTHERS, decided on Tuesday, February 8, 2011.
[ In the High Court of Madras, A.S.No. 616 of 2011 In C.S.No. 937 of 2007. ] 08/02/2011
Judge(s) : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Advocate(s) : P.H. Arvindh Pandian, A.V. Radhakrishnan, N.V. Srinivasan M/s. N.V.S. Associates, C. Uma Shankar, V. Ramakrishnan, M. Kempraj.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    This is an application filed by the plaintiff in the suit seeking appropriate directions to the Judge-Receiver to make advertisements both for clearing the air of suspicion and also for inviting offers for the sale of the properties.2. Heard Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian learned counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff Mr. N.V. Srinivasan Mr. C. Umashanker Mr. A.V. Radhakrishnan Mr. Ramakrishnan learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants and Mr. M. Kempraj learned counsel appearing for the Judge-Receiver.3. While all the learned counsel appearing on both sides agree that all disputes between the parties could be resolved only by the sale of the property Mr. N.V. Srinivasan learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant objected to the same on the ground that without taking a decision in a properly convened Annual General Meeting of the Company and without getting the support of the majority for the sale of the property such a prayer cannot be made by one of the shareholders. But the said objection cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the parties are already bogged down by several litigations. In brief it must be pointed out that six brothers started two companies one of which purchased a property on which the present Udayam Theatre Complex stands. Now none of the family members are actually is management of any of the properties since a learned Judge has been appointed as a Receiver to run the Theatre and administer the properties.4. After I made it clear that the objections cannot be sustained Mr. N.V. Srinivasan learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant submitted that in the event of this Court deciding to sell the property the first and second defendants may be given an opportunity to buy it. The learned counsel also produced before me a letter enclosing two cheques issued by another company in favour of the second defendant for a total amount of Rs.95 crores. Though the learned counsel appearing for the other parties contended that the cheques cannot be taken to be proof of availability of funds and also the intention of the first and second defendants to purchase the properties and that therefore advertisements have to be issued for the sale of the property I am of the view that before proceeding to offer the property for sale to third parties an offer can be made to the family members themselves. As pointed out earlier it was six brothers who actually held 1 266 equity shares each totaling to 7 596 shares in the company who owned Udayam Theatre Complex. Five out of six brothers are now no more. The family members of those five brothers have inherited the shares held by the head of the respective families. Therefore if any one of the members of the family is willing to make an offer which is not below the offer now made by the second defendant the property may not go out of the family. Therefore the application is directed to be listed on 18.2.2011. On 18.2.2011 it is open to any of the members of the six branches of the family to come up with an offer either matching the offer now made by the second defendant or offering a higher amount than the present offer. But while making the said offer on 18.2.2011 the second defendant as well as the other offerors should produce sufficient proof to show the availability of funds so that the question of considering any of their offers could be taken up.Post on 18.2.2011.