1 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 648 OF 2004 Baroda Pioneer Asset Management Co. Ltd. .. Petitioners Versus Athena Financial Services Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Ajit Anant Salvi i/by Anant B. Shinde for the petitioner Dy. O.L. Present None for the Respondent CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 15 th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. This Company Petition is filed by the Petitioners seeking winding up of the Respondent Company- M/s Athena Financial Services Ltd. The Company Petition is for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Company Petition was admitted by this Court by its order dated 7 th April, 2005. In the said order, statement of the Respondent Company that “sum of Rs.11 crores will be paid in full and final settlement of the claim of the Petitioners, in monthly installment of Rs.27,00,000/- commencing from 1.6.2005 and payable at every succeeding month till the entire amount is paid” is recorded. It is further recorded in the order that “if there 2 are any two defaults in payment of the aforesaid amount, the Petition to stand admitted and advertised in Free Press Journal, Janmabhoomi and Maharashtra Government Gazette”. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that thereafter the company defaulted in making payment of several installments because of which, the Company Petition was admitted and advertised. An affidavit proving publication of the admission dated 31 st July, 2006 is on record. Notice under Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1956 is returned with the remark “left””. The company has not filed any affidavit in reply to the Company Petition after the company petition stood admitted. The Company has also not come forward to defend the Petition though the Petition was adjourned on 30.6.2010, 28.7.2010, 26.8.2010, 27.8.2010, 3.9.2010, 23.9.2010 and 14.10.2010. The allegations made in the Petition by the Petitioners have therefore remained uncontroverted. The Respondent Company has also not complied with its own statement recorded in the order dated 7 th April, 2005. 4. Under the circumstances, the Company Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)