9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the letters of intent annexures P-1, P-3 and P-5, the respondent-company is stated to have issued letters annexures P-2, P-4 and P-6 respectively affirming satisfactory completion of works. Having completed the various works assigned by the respondent-company to the petitioner, the petitioner raised bills demanding payment after due execution. On the receipt of the said bills, the respondent-company is stated to have paid certain amounts to the petitioner. In this behalf, it is pointed out that the respondent-company has maintained a running account depicting the amount payable by the respondent-company to the petitioner wherein the details of various payments already made to the petitioner have also been indicated. According to the running account, by March, 1998, a sum of Rs. 8,76,498.89 was payable by the respondent-company to the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed on record annexure P-7, i.e. , the ledger maintained by the respondent-company with respect to the dues payable to the petitioner. The aforesaid ledger depicts a sum of Rs. 8,76,498.89 as payable by the respondent-company to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he repeatedly requested t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy of the instant winding up petition, the petitioner moved C.A. No. 705 of 1999 under section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for the appointment of the provisional liquidator. Reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the respondent-company. This court vide its order dated July 27, 2000 (having arrived at the conclusion that there was absolutely no possibility for the revival of the respondent-company) accepted the prayer of the petitioner for appointment of a provisional liquidator, to take into his custody assets of the respondent-company. It would be pertinent to mention that the order of this court appointing the provisional liquidator, wherein this court had arrived at the conclusion that there was absolutely no possibility for the revival of the respondent-company in the background of extensive losses suffered by it, was assailed by filing Company Appeal No. 24 of 2000 impugning the order passed in C.A. No. 705 of 1999. The same was, however, dismissed on August 10, 2000. In the interregnum, an application under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by Punwire Executive Welfare Association (Regd.), Punwire Marts Employees Union (Regd.) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture, the adjournment sought by learned counsel for the employees' union was vehemently opposed by the petitioner asserting that the wage bill of the employees was to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000 every month and as such the deferment of the instant case was adversely affecting the creditors. Faced with the said opposition, Mr. L.M. Suri, senior advocate requested for an adjournment to February 1, 2001, and stated that in case no order was passed by the apex court by the said date, he would not request for any further adjournment. Accordingly, final arguments on the instant winding up petition were deferred to February 1, 2001 ( i.e. , today). It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the instant petition has been taken up today for arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that despite the personal efforts made by the petitioner, the respondent-company did not repay the petitioner's admitted debt. Thereafter, despite the statutory notice issued on August 11, 1999, the respondent-company did not pay a single penny compelling the petitioner to approach this court through the instant winding up petition. Even after the filing of the winding up petition, nothing wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns have been made. In other words, the affairs of the company are in the hands of a management which is ad hoc in nature. ( vii )Allegations levelled against the management for having led this company to its disaster are totally unrebutted in the reply filed by the respondent-company as well as the submissions made during the course of arguments. According to the averments made in the written statement, the only action initiated after the discovery of losses as mentioned hereinabove is that PSIDC, i.e. , the promoter company of Punjab Wireless Systems Limited, has ordered investigation into the affairs of the company for the last five years by Price Waterhouse Coopers. However, no report has been submitted by the aforesaid agency till date. The PSIDC has also appointed Mrs. Justice H.K. Sandhu (Retd.) to look into the affairs of the company and to fix responsibilities. Various FIRs have also been filed in respect of the manipulations and fraud at the hands of some of the employees of the respondent-company. These enquiries serve no interest of the creditors. However, no worthwhile effort is being made for its revival. ( viii )The respondent-company has no unencumbered assets w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
