9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y ). Further the petitioner has prayed for appointment of the Official Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator of the respondent-company. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered proprietary firm having its registered office at 2nd Floor, Budhraj Chambers, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat). The respondent-company is incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at the aforesaid given address. 4. The respondent-company, as per the averments made by the petitioner, is engaged in the business of production and manufacturing of crockery, potteries, tiles and sanitary board insulators. 5. The respondent-company, it is alleged, has purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er sent a notice through Advocate, which is stated to be a statutory notice, dated 17-8-2004, to the respondent-company and called upon it to make the payment of Rs. 2,97,797.50p., together with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, from the date of delivery of goods, within 21 days of receipt of such notice, failing which the respondent-company will be deemed unable to pay their debts and the petitioner will file a winding up petition. 8. The petitioner s grievance is that the respondent-company has not acknowledged the notice what to say to make the payment of the outstanding amount of the bill of the material purchased by it from the petitioner, thus this winding up petition has been filed on 13-4-2005. 9. From t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be barred by limitation. That apart the remedy availed by the petitioner for winding up of the respondent- company is in the discretion of the Court. The Court may or may not, in a given facts of a particular case, order for winding up of a company sought to be wound up. 11. The facts that the respondent-company never denied its liability, the petitioner went on granting time to it, the right to recover of the amount of the bill would have become barred by limitation on the date of filing of petition and that the petition has been filed after more than six years of the issuance of the bill allegedly due and after more than three years of the last acknowledgement made of the debt of the respondent-company, it is not the fit case whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
