2010 (12) TMI 1362 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Winding up of respondent-company under section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 based on unpaid debts by the respondent-company to the petitioners.

Analysis:
The judgment involves multiple petitions filed under section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent-company due to unpaid debts owed to the petitioners who are creditors. The petitioners in each case provided goods to the respondent-company but were not paid the amounts due. The respondent-company failed to make payments despite repeated requests, demands, and statutory notices issued by the petitioners. The court noted that the respondent-company admitted its liability through various communications and acknowledgments. Additionally, cheques issued by the respondent-company for payment were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court found that the respondent-company was unable to pay its debts, leading to the decision to wind up the company.

The court highlighted specific instances where the respondent-company failed to make payments to the petitioners despite receiving goods and services. In one case, the respondent-company ordered TMT bars from the petitioner, but failed to pay an amount of Rs. 17,68,500 despite multiple reminders and notices. In another case, the respondent-company purchased TMT bars but issued dishonored cheques totaling Rs. 29,87,584. Similarly, in a different case, the respondent-company issued cheques amounting to Rs. 21,50,372 which were returned due to insufficient funds. The court emphasized the respondent-company's consistent failure to fulfill its financial obligations towards the petitioners, leading to the decision to wind up the company.

The court addressed the procedural aspects of the petitions, noting that despite service of notices, the respondent-company did not file any statement of objections disputing the claims made by the petitioners. The court also highlighted that the respondent-company did not take any steps to discharge its liabilities even after the petitions were admitted and advertised. Based on the evidence presented and the respondent-company's failure to pay its debts, the court allowed the petitions, ordered the winding up of the respondent-company, appointed the Official Liquidator as the Liquidator, and directed the petitioner-companies to deposit funds with the Official Liquidator for winding up expenses. Additionally, the court instructed the petitioner-companies to publish advertisements of the winding-up order and serve a certified copy of the order to the Registrar of Companies within specified timelines.