9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt has held that the appellant herein has no bonafide defence to the winding up petition and also that the appellant is unwilling and unable to pay the admitted liability. The Company Court has held that the defence of the appellant as to why it would not pay the admitted debt is neither one of substance nor in good faith. In those circumstances, the Company Court has admitted the winding up petition and appointed a Provisional Liquidator for the appellant company. 2. The respondents between the period 24.11.1998 and 11.01.2000 by way of inter-corporate deposits sanctioned and disbursed a total amount of ₹ 7 Crores as loan to the appellant. 3. The appellant allege to have suffered set backs on account of change in excise policy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time measure for a sum of ₹ 774.08 lakhs as one time settlement amount assuming to be paid immediately i.e. 15 days from the date of sanction of OTS. The letter also recorded that the said figure of ₹ 75 lakhs sought to be adjusted by the appellant had, in fact, been adjusted against interest dues and, as such, could not be considered as part of the one time settlement amount and the cheque of ₹ 2,70,000/- was not being deposited in the account of the respondents. The proposal of settlement submitted by the appellant was considered even without the down payment of 10% of the settlement amount. The letter of 10.05.2012 was without prejudice and required the appellant to make the payment immediately. The appellant admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of ₹ 7,77,66,667/-. It was clarified by the Hon?ble Court that in case no settlement was arrived at, the matter would be heard on merits. 13. On 25.04.2013, the counsel for the appellant offered to pay a sum of ₹ 6,92,87,036/- to the respondents. However, counsel for the respondents declined to accept the said amount and made a one last offer to the appellant to pay to the respondents a sum of ₹ 7,52,66,667/-. The said offer of the respondents was declined by the appellant. 14. The matter thereafter was heard on merits and the order dated 03.05.2013 has been passed finding the defence of the appellants as not bona fide and admitting the petition for winding up and appointing the Provisional Liquidator. 15. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds the respondents. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the admisison of liability is not unqualified, does not hold much water inasmuch as the amount is shown as payable in the Balance Sheet to the respondents and a qualifying note would not in any manner dilute the acknowledgment of liability of at least that amount. 19. The numerous orders extracted by the Company Judge clearly demonstrate that the appellant had sought and availed all numerous opportunities to comply with the requirement of the OTS offered by the respondents but instead of complying with the same, had been on one pretext or the other trying to wriggle out the same and seek extension of time. 20. The Company Court has, thus, rightly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
