9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to appoint Official Liquidator, High Court of Judicature at Bombay as Liquidator of respondent company with all powers under the Companies Act, 1956/2013 including the power to take possession of all the assets, books of account, stock in trade, cash on hand, movable properties including furniture and fixtures as well as all immovable properties. Petition allowed. - K.R.SHRIRAM, J. Mr. Dhiren Akbari for petitioner. Ms. Heena Shaikh i/b. Ms. Rohini Amin for respondent. P.C.: 1 This petition is for winding up of respondent company M/s. VKS Projects Limited (the company) under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the company is unable to discharge its debts and is commercially insolv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een made, the court may pass a winding up order on the basis that amount claimed has not been denied by the company and there is a presumption of inability to pay by the company. Where no response has been made to the statutory notice, the respondent company runs a risk of winding up petition being admitted for hearing at the threshold stage itself. Admission of the petition at its first hearing is possible because, by virtue of Section 434 of the Companies Act 1956 a presumption of the indebtedness can be legitimately drawn by the court where no reply to the statutory notice is forthcoming. 4. The company has filed an affidavit in reply of Dr.V.K.Sukumaran affirmed on 6.9.2017. The company does not dispute the fact that it had issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evidence whatsoever. At the same time, it should also be noted that to the affidavit in reply is annexed a copy of the Suit bearing (Lodging) No.9299 of 2017 filed by the company in the Bombay City Civil Court, at Bombay, for various reliefs mentioned therein. One of the documents annexed to the said Suit is confirmation of account for the period 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014 issued by the company to petitioner in which the company has confirmed that an amount of Rs.12,49,265.52/ is payable by the company to petitioner. 7. Therefore, in my view, the defences raised by the company are all after thoughts, moonshine, bogus and unsustainable. The petition requires to be admitted. Hence, the following order is passed : ORDER (i) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeks from today. If the said amount is deposited, the petition will stand disposed with liberty to petitioner to take such appropriate proceedings as advised. If the amount is not deposited, then petitioner may go ahead and advertise the petition. The time prescribed in paragraph7(ii) will commence after two weeks period is over. 3 Mr. Akbari, counsel for petitioner states that despite opportunity given by this Court in its order dated 27th February 2018, the company has not deposited the amount of Rs.12,49,266/ . It should be noted that no new case has been made out by the company by filing any further affidavit in reply. 4 Petitioner has filed an affidavit of one Bipin Gandhi affirmed on 2nd May, 2018 confirming advertising the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
