9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of Rs. 4,84,177.73 which it has not paid despite service of statutory notice. It has, therefore, been prayed that the respon-dent-company which is unable to pay its debts be wound up. 2. This court vide its order dated 5-10-1993 issued notice to the respon-dent-company to show cause why this petition may not be admitted and advertised. The company has put in appearance and initially raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this petition as the jurisdiction to entertain the same lay with the Lucknow Bench. The said objection was overruled by this court. As no counter affidavit was filed, this court ordered the petition to be adverised. Thereafter, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has contended that Shri M.M. Tayal and Shri D.M. Tayal were the main promoters of the respondent-company. Shri M.M. Tayal was the chairman and Shri D.M. Tayal was a director. The said two persons were also directors of the petitioner-company. As directors of the respondent-company Shri M.M. Tayal and Shri D.M. Tayal had given an undertaking to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation of India Ltd., Kanpur that they will advance unsecured loan of Rs. 8 lakhs to the company which will not be repaid without prior written permission of the U.P. State Industrial Corporation. The said undertaking was accepted and was also incorporated in the prospectus of the respondent company. It has been further stated that the petitioner-company di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime to file a supplementary affidavit company to show that the amount was actually paid by the petitioner-company to the respondent. The time prayed for was granted. Despite taking several adjournments for one and a half year, the said supplementary affidavit had not been filed. It will be noticed that the case of the respondent-company is that the money was advanced as loan by the director Shri M.M. Tayal as per the undertaking given to the corporation and not by the petitioner-company and, therefore, the petition on behalf of the petitioner was not maintainable. The crux of the dispute, therefore, was whether the money was advanced by Shri M.M. Tayal or by the petitioner-company. The onus for proving the same was on the petitioner. Conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
