9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the petitioner HDPE Bags amount- ing to Rs. 6,44,625. The respondent-company gave four cheques to the petitioner which were dishonoured by the bank with the remarks 'refer to drawer/funds insufficient' The petitioner approached the respondent- company to make payment. The respondent thereafter made payment to the tune of Rs. 3,70,000 against the outstanding principal dues of Rs. 6,44,625 besides interest @ 24 per cent. per annum. For the balance amount of Rs. 2,74,625 per cent the respondent again issued a cheque which was returned with the endorsement 'since account closed by the drawer'. The petitioner served a statutory notice only on respondent- company at its registered office by registered post. Despite the receipt of the same, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de out. 6. However, the publication of the advertisement was stayed provided the respondent-company paid the admitted amount to the petitioner in two equal instalments by means of a bank draft. The question of interest was left to be considered at the time of final hearing. The respondent-company challenged the said order by means of a special appeal before the Division Bench, which was dismissed with the observation that in case the respon-dent-company sought further time to make the payment, an application could be filed before the company Court. Consequently, the respondent filed an application (A. 9) dated 1-10-1997 seeking two months' time to pay the entire sum. This Court while hearing the said application vide order dated 17-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, need not be repeated again. It is evident that despite having taken time for the last over one year for depositing the amount admitted by them, the respondent-company has failed to comply with the said order. They have only deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 that too after taking several adjournments. When the matter was listed for hearing today, the learned counsel for the respondent-company has not been able to satisfy the Court as to why the winding-up orders may not be passed against the said company. It is evident that the respondent-company has not even able to pay the dues which they were admitting. Consequently, this Court is satisfied that the respondent-company is unable to pay its dues and it would be appropriate in the interest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
