Lsp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 394 of 2003 Gargi Industries ...Petitioner V/s. Chetan Foundaries Ltd. ...Respondents ALONGWITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 395 OF 2003 Gargi Steel Chem Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. Chetan Foundaries Ltd. ...Respondents ALONGWITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 396 OF 2003 Gargi Huttens Albertus Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioners V/s. Chetan Foundaries Ltd. ...Respondents ALONGWITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 158 OF 2004 Foseco India Ltd. ...Petitioners V/s. Chetan Foundaries Ltd. ...Respondents Advocates and parties absent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 18th November, 2008 : 18th November, 2008 : 18th November, 2008 P.C. . All these petitions can be disposed of by this common order as common prayer is made in each of these petitions, to wind up the respondent company. 2. In Company Petition No. 394 of 2003, the claim amount is Rs. 2,14,556.74 paise, whereas in Company 2 Petition No. 395/2003 it is Rs. 91,386/-. In Company Petition No. 396/2003 it is Rs. 50,62,060/- and in Company Petition No. 158/2004 it is Rs. 80,76,104.33 paise. None appears for respondents. It is noticed that no reply has been filed by the respondent company controverting the assertions made in the petitions. In fact the respondent company filed an affidavit only to indicate that BIFR proceedings were pending against the respondent company. However, subsequently the BIFR proceedings have been dropped as indicated in the order dated 17th December, 2007 while admitting the present petitions. There is nothing on record to indicate that company has become viable to pay off its debts during intervening period. Claim in each of these petitions is supported by documentary evidence which indicate that respondent company is unable to pay the amount as claimed. As aforesaid, the respondent has failed and neglected to pay outstanding dues inspite of the statutory notice as well as order of admission of the present petition. In that sense, averments made in each of these petitions have remained uncontroverted. It necessarily follows that the respondent company has failed to rebut the presumption that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts. Considering the outstanding dues of the petitioners as aforesaid which is quite substantial, coupled with the fact that at one stage BIFR proceedings were pending against the 3 respondent company, it presupposes that the respondent company is in financial difficulty. 3. Taking over all view of the matter, I have no hesitation is allowing all these petitions. In the circumstances, it is ordered that the respondent company be wound up immediately. Official Liquidator shall take steps as may be required in relation to assets and properties of the respondent company. Petitions disposed of accordingly. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]