9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November, 1998. The statutory notice of demand was attempted to be served upon the registered office. However, the same came back with the endorsement "Not known". 2. The winding-up petition was heard by Girish Chandra Gupta, J. when His Lordship by his judgment and order dated 16th May, 2002 admitted the winding-up petition and directed advertisement to be published once in the "Statesman" and once in the "Pratidin". His Lordship granted liberty to the company to pay off the admitted sum together with costs of the application assessed on Rs. 10,000. Before His Lordship, the company took a plea that no statutory notice was served in the eye of law. His Lordship held that there was bona fide attempt on the part of the petitioner to se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditor arose out of money lent and advanced for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. The said fact is not disputed by the company. It is also an admitted fact that the company paid from time to time interest on the said sum. The confirmation of account was also signed by the petitioner as would appear from the documents annexed to the winding-up petition. The company also furnished TDS Certificate for the income tax deducted from the interest income accrued to the petitioner. Hence, there cannot be any dispute whatsoever with regard to the payability of the amount as claimed by the petitioning creditor. Assuming the winding-up notice was not served upon the company, it is evident that the company is unable to pay its debt. There is an admitted sum due a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of the said sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. The company paid interest from time to time as would appear from the documents annexed to the pleadings. The company deducted tax at source out of the interest income. Even after this I am unable to find out any dispute at all far to speak of bona fide which could at least prima facie show that there is a triable issue. The court of appeal already held that there was no statutory notice served upon the company in law. The aforesaid facts, however, depict that the company is not in a position to pay the just dues of the petitioner. Failure and negligence to pay the admitted sum is also an instance of involved circumstances. The aforesaid fact would clearly show that the company is unable to pay its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 11th December, 2002, had set aside the order of the learned Company Court and the matter was sent back to the Trial Court for hearing of the winding-up petition afresh on merits in terms of the observation made therein. 2. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said Judgment and Order of the Division Bench, the winding-up petition has already been heard and the same is pending for delivery of Judgment. 3. In view of such fact and more particularly regard being had to the fact that the above review application was not filed soon after the delivery of the Judgment of the Division Bench and more so, when steps were not taken for hearing of the review application before the conclusion of hearing of the matter by the Trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
