9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terthought. Petition admitted. - CO.PET. 400/2012 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2019 - MR. JAYANT NATH J. Petitioner Through Mr. Akhil Sachar, Ms. Sunanda, Advs. Respondent Through Ms. Kaadambari and Ms. Mansi Sinha, Advs. JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is filed under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company. The case of the petitioner is that on 13.11.2009 the respondent engaged the petitioner to perform certain management services in respect of the Gold Souk Mall in Kochi owned by the petitioner. On 21.12.2010 the petitioner s engagement was duly extended under the cost-sheet duly executed by the parties. It is stated that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an email to Mr.Sonu Varshney who represents the AGS Group which is the principal of the respondent pointing out that a sum of ₹ 9,77,271/- remains outstanding on account of pending invoices details of which are given, Mr.Sonu Varshney on 21.7.2011 has written back to Mr.Javed, the General Manager of the petitioner with a copy to Mr.Amit Gupta who is said to be connected with the respondents confirming the outstanding dues i.e. ₹ 9,77,271/-. 6. Similarly, the petitioner has also placed on record by an additional affidavit Form 26AS being the TDS deposited by the respondents. It is pleaded that the TDS deposited at Serial Nos. 161,168,169,170 and 171 of the said firm would add up to the outstanding amount payable by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner pointing out to the petitioner that its staff was negligent and was the cause of the said explosion in the DG Set. In the absence of any contemporaneous communication in this regard the plea of the respondent can only said to be an afterthought. 10. I may also note that the petitioner has sent a legal notice to the respondent on 18.4.2012. Receipt of this notice is not denied by the respondents in their reply. Admittedly, there was no response to the statutory legal notice. 11. Reference may be had to the judgment of this Court in Resham Singh Co. P. Ltd. vs. Daewoo Motors India Ltd., 2002 SCC Online Del 1274 where this court held as follows:- 3. I shall first deal with the consequences of the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator is thus broodingly and ominously present in all those cases where the Respondent Company neglects to send any Reply to the winding-up notice. But this is as far as the danger extends. My attention has been justifiably drawn to the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in Vimco Ltd. v. Sidvink Properties (P) Ltd., 1996 Vol. 86 Company Cases 610 , where it has been held by P.K Bahri, J. that where a bona fide dispute had been shown to the Court, the question of applying the deeming provision should not automatically arise. I continue to be in respectful agreement with this view. Applying this ratio to the facts of the present case, without in any manner diluting or undermining the signif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priate to do so. The Official Liquidator to take all further steps that may be necessary in this regard to protect the premises and assets of the respondent-company. The OL will also seize all the bank accounts of the respondent. 15. However, in the interest of justice, I suspend the aforesaid order appointing the OL as the Provisional Liquidator for a period of four weeks. In case the respondent makes necessary payment of the said sum of ₹ 9,77,271/- within four weeks from today alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the legal notice till date of payment the aforenoted order appointing the OL as the Provisional Liquidator shall stand revoked. 16. List on 5.9.2019. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
