9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the said application under Section 434(e) of the Companies Act (in short "the Act of 1956") for winding up of the respondent-company on the ground that the latter failed to pay its dues on account of transportation charges. However, the respondent company contested the winding-up application by an order dated March 26, 2015 a learned Single Judge of this Court admitted the winding-up application against the respondent company for the principal amount of Rs. 5,15,31,045/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum, to be calculated from the date of the statutory notice till the date of actual payment. By the said order the learned Single Judge, however, directed that if the company pays off the entire amount together with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt dismissed the appeal filed by the company. An application filed by the company for review of the Division Bench order dated September 18, 2015, being R.V.W.O. No.28 of 2015 was also rejected but the company did not challenge the said order dated August 4, 2016 before any superior forum. Therefore, the liability of the company to pay the principal sum of Rs. 5,15,31,045/- together with interest thereon, as directed by the order dated March 26, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge while admitting the winding-up application attained finality. In spite of dismissal of the aforementioned appeal and its liability to pay the dues of the petitioner in terms of the said order dated March 26, 2015 having attained finality, the company did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89/- remained outstanding as on December 15, 2017 and today the petitioning creditor has been informed that the company has deposited Rs. 20 lakhs in the bank account of the petitioning creditor through RTGS. Thus, according to Mr. Banerjee, as on today Rs. 2,60,40,089/- still remains due and outstanding by the company to the petitioning creditor and as such the prayer of the petitioning creditor for causing advertisements of the publication, the winding-up application of the company should be allowed. On the other hand, Ms. Kajaria, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-company, submitted that in the appeal before the Division Bench the company had admitted its liability to pay Rs. 3.50 crores only to the petitioning creditor and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application of the petitioner being C.A. No.58 of 2017 succeeds. The time for publication of the advertisement of the winding-up application, in the newspapers mentioned in the order dated March 26, 2015, is extended till February 9, 2018. The application, C.A. No. 49 of 2017 stands rejected. Although the application, C.A. No.119 of 2017 stands rejected but, in the interest of justice an opportunity is granted to the company to pay Rs. 2.60,40,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Sixty Lakhs and Forty Thousand only) to the petitioning creditor, by way of full and final settlement of its dues, within February 1, 2018. If, the company pays the aforementioned amount to the petitioning creditor within February 01, 2018 the petitioning creditor shall not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
