1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Company Petition No. 554 of 2001 In the matter of Mintage Electro Equipments Ltd. ..Company M/s Monalisa E.D.C.Pvt.Ltd. ..Petitioner Dr.Santosh Raje for petitioner. Ms.Samita Karnik i/b Divekar and Co. for respondent company. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 7th October, 2009 P.C. 1 The above company petition was filed by the petitioner seeking winding up of the respondent company in the year 2001. Thereafter consent terms were filed before this Court on 4th April, 2002 where under the respondent company agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,78,960/- to the petitioner within a period of 18 months i.e. by August, 2003. By an order of this Court dated 4th April, 2002 the 2 consent terms were taken on record and an order in terms of the consent terms was passed. Except for a payment of Rs.25,000/- the respondent company failed and neglected to make any payment as agreed under the consent terms. Since the respondent company failed to comply with the consent terms, the company petition was admitted by this Court on 2nd December, 2004. Thereafter the petitioner published advertisements in the local newspapers i.e. Free Press Journal and Navshakti both dated 13th November, 2007. The same was also advertised in Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 15th November, 2007. An affidavit to this effect dated 21st December, 2007 is on record. In the mean time by an order dated 9th November, 2006 passed in Company Application no.2564 of 2005, this Court has appointed the Official Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator of the respondent company. This Court is informed by the 3 Liquidator that the Directors of the respondent have filed the statement of affairs of the company with the Liquidator. No affidavit has been filed by the respondent opposing this petition till date. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the Advocates have no instructions from the respondent. Interestingly the same Advocates had made similar statement before this Court when the company petition was admitted on 2nd December, 2004. 2 It is, therefore, established beyond any doubt that the respondent company has accepted the allegations made in the company petition and are not interested in contesting the same. In view thereof for the afore stated reasons and the reasons set out in the order admitting the petition dated 2nd December, 2004 and the order appointing Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator of the respondent company , the company petition is 4 allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)