9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1099 - HC - Companies LawWinding up petition - non payment of debts - Held that - The respondent-Company is the principal borrower. The record clearly indicates that the decree passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai is not interfered with by the Appellate Tribunal. The record further indicates that the said decree is unsatisfied till date. It prima facie appears that the respondent-Company is unable to pay the debts of the petitioner and is commercially insolvent Hence Company Petition is admitted and made returnable on 13th September 2017.
Issues involved: Petition seeking winding up of a company under Sections 433(e), 434 read with 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 based on a decree from the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai Bench.
Analysis: 1. Petition for Winding Up: The petitioner filed a petition seeking the winding up of the respondent-Company, Jai Hind Finance (India) Ltd., under Sections 433(e), 434 read with 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The basis of this petition was a decree passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No. 172 of 2013 dated 16th January 2015. The record indicates that the decree remains unsatisfied till date, suggesting the respondent-Company's inability to pay its debts, leading to a finding of commercial insolvency. 2. Court Order: The High Court admitted the Company Petition and made it returnable on 13th September 2017. The petitioner was directed to advertise the petition in two local newspapers, namely 'Free Press Journal' in English, 'Nav Shakti' in Marathi, and in the Maharashtra Government Gazette. Any delay in the publication of the advertisement in the Gazette was deemed acceptable, provided it did not invalidate the notice. The petitioner was also instructed to deposit ?10,000 with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Court for publication charges within three weeks, failing which the Petition would be dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. Additionally, a notice under Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was to be issued. 3. Next Steps: The matter was adjourned to 13th September 2017 for further proceedings as per the Court's directions.
|
