1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUO MOTO COMPANY PETITION NO.930 OF 2007 BIFR. ..Petitioner. V/s. Saurashtra Steel Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.21 OF 1998 M/s.United Agency. ..Petitioner. V/s. Saurashtra Steel Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. None present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 5, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 5, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 5, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Inspite of service none appears for the Respondent company. No reply has been filed so far. The BIFR has recommended winding up of the Respondent company in terms of the Order dated 4th August, 1994. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said Order has been subsequently reversed by the BIFR or set aside by the AAIFR. The BIFR in its order dated 4th August, 1994 on the basis of material before it has recorded an informed opinion that it is just and 2 equitable that the Respondent company should be wound up in terms of the Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985, as it was noticed that net worth of the Respondent company has totally eroded. The record indicates that the order passed by the BIFR has been affirmed by the AAIFR vide Order dated 9th September, 1996. The AAIFR has considered all the aspects including the share capital position and the losses incurred by the company to the extent of Rs.14,90,00,000/- while affirming the view taken by the BIFR that the Respondent company needs to be wound up in the public interest. 2. On going through the materials forwarded by the BIFR, I have no hesitation in affirming the view taken by the AAIFR that the Respondent company deserves to be wound up. Besides the recommendation of the BIFR, there is one more Company Petition pending against the Respondent company before this Court since 1998. Case made out in the said Petition is that the Petitioners had sold, delivered and supplied goods to the Respondent company as per the orders placed from time to time. The claim of the Petitioner is aggregate amount of Rs. 7,59,786.62/-. As the amount was not paid by the Respondent company, 3 Petitioner therein issued statutory notice. Inspite of statutory notice, the Respondent did not bother to pay the amount. As a result, the Petition for winding up of the Respondent company is filed in this Court on 20th October, 1997. 3. As the Respondent has not bothered to appear in either of the proceedings inspite of the notice and has not filed any reply affidavit to counter the assertions made in the companion company Petition filed by the private petitioner, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the Respondent company has failed and neglected to pay its debt and in fact, is unable to pay its debt. On this finding, the Respondent company deserves to be wound up. Accordingly, the Company Petition No.21 of 1998 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). 4. In view of the order passed in the companion Company Petition No.21 of 1998, no further order is required in Suo Moto Petition No.930 of 2007. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)