9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Petitioner. G.K.V. Murthy for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This petition is filed under Section 433(e) and (f) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking for winding up of the respondent-company for non-payment of its dues. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office at Sumo Pinnacle No.539, 4th floor, 9th cross, Kariyappa Road, Kanakapura Road, Jayanagar 7th Block, Bangalore-70. The petitioner is doing the business in Computer and laptops and rents out the computer and laptops and its various Peripherals to the customers on rental/hire basis on mutually agreed hire/rent charges. 3. The respondent is a company incorporated on 24-4-2006 as a Private Limited Company hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered between the parties, the petitioner has restricted the interest at the rate of 18% p.a., and the same would work out to a sum of Rs. 3,03,421/- (Rupees three lakhs three thousand four hundred and twenty one only) as on 20-10-2010. Since the respondent has failed to make the payment of the aforesaid hire charges within the stipulated time, the respondent has also became liable to pay the aforesaid interest amount. Further, the respondent has failed to return 29 laptops, which were taken on rental basis. 5. Further, on the e-mail correspondence dated 23-4-2010 with the respondent by the petitioner, the respondent in their reply in an e-mail dated 24-4-2010, informed the petitioner that in view of the financial crisis and due to non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Rs. 25,22,067.76 (Rupees twenty five lakhs twenty two thousand sixty seven and paise seventy six only). The respondent has failed to pay the amount due to the petitioner. In view of that, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking for winding up of the respondent company. 6. The respondent in their statement of objections denied the averments made in the petition and contended that the respondent is not liable to pay any amount towards the hire/rental charges. They have already paid the entire rental charges of Rs. 34,60,096/-. It is further contended that they have already returned the laptops and they are not due any rental charges to the petitioner. It is contended that they had taken the computers and laptops on hire charges f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-2010 with regard to dues of Rs. 21,87,965/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs eighty seven thousand nine hundred and sixty five only) as on 30-6-2010 is also not correct. Further, the respondent is a solvent company and financially in good condition. It has made a sale of more than Rs. 20.00 crorcs during the year 2009-2010 and earned the profit of more than Rs. 49.00 lakhs. Since the respondent has disputed the claim made by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot maintain this petition and use the Company Court for recovery of its dues and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the parties. 8. The case of the petitioner is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs and laptops and the respondent has taken computers and laptops on hire/rental basis and given on hire to some other company for higher rental charges. As per the records maintained by the petitioner, the respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 54,01,595/- as on 30-06-2010, however, repaid a sum of Rs. 34,60.096/- and the balance amount is not paid in spite of repeated requests. As per the contract of business, the respondent is liable to pay the interest. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent has not returned 29 laptops, for which, the petitioner has raised another invoice for Rs. 5,65,500/-. However, the respondent has contended that they have returned the said laptops, but no document is produced in this regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o show that they had returned 29 laptops. Further, the ledger extract has been sent to the respondent along with the statutory notice, but the respondent has not replied to the said notice. In the absence of the same, the contention of the respondent cannot be acceptable. It is well-settled law that if the creditor's debt is bona fide disputed, on substantial grounds the court will not interfere. In the instant case, there is no substance in the dispute raised by the respondent to the claim made by the petitioner. There is a wilful negligence on the part of the respondent in not paying the debts dues to the petitioner. 11. The petitioner has made out a case for admission of this petition and also for advertisement. Accordingly, the compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
