9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Company petition for winding up under section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a company petition seeking winding up of the respondent company due to its inability to pay a debt of Rs. 1,71,43,173, despite repeated demands. The petition was supported by necessary facts and documents to establish the debt. The respondent filed a reply, but there was no indication of disputing or denying the debt. The court found that the petitioner had successfully established the debt payable by the respondent. 2. The court heard both parties and concluded that the petitioner had made a case for winding up the respondent company under section 433(e) of the Companies Act. Prior to this petition, 21 other creditors had also filed petitions for winding up the respondent company based on similar grounds of non-payment of debts. These petitions, including those from secured creditors like banks and financial institutions, were also founded on admitted debts amounting to crores of rupees. 3. It was undisputed that the respondent company had ceased its business activities. The closure of business, coupled with the absence of any proposal for repayment of debts, indicated the company's inability to pay its liabilities. The court noted that the company's liabilities exceeded its assets, and there was no indication of a profitable business revival plan. 4. Based on the lack of business activity, substantial outstanding dues, and absence of a viable repayment proposal, the court found a prima facie case for winding up the company under sections 433(e) and 433(f) of the Companies Act. Consequently, the court directed the winding up of the respondent company and scheduled a hearing for the appointment of an Official Liquidator to take custody of the company's assets. 5. Subsequently, on 27 January 2004, the court ordered the winding up of the respondent company, Kedia Distilleries Ltd. The Registrar was directed to inform the Official Liquidator about the winding up order and authorized the Official Liquidator to take possession of the company's assets to facilitate further proceedings. The Official Liquidator was also permitted to deploy security guards to safeguard the company's properties.
|
