1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION rpa COMPANY PETITION NO. 960 OF 2009. ALONGWITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1172 OF 2009 Sublime Agro Ltd. .. Petitioners v/s. M/s. Indage Vintners Ltd. .. Respondents. .... Mr. Prakash Shinde i/b. J. Sagar & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Anant Iyengar for the Respondents. .... CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2010. P.C. By this Petition, the Petitioners are seeking winding up of the Respondent Company M/s. Indage Vintners Ltd. (formally known as Champagne Indage Limited). 2. The Petitioners have admittedly given corporate loans of Rs. 25,00,000/-, Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- to the Respondent Company vide letters dated 25th November, 2005, 27th December, 2005 and 27th November, 2007, respectively. The Respondent Company admittedly failed to repay the said loans 2 and has confirmed that an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One crore) being the outstanding principal amount is due and payable to the Petitioner as on 2nd May, 2009. 3. The Petitioner served a statutory notice dated 10th August, 2009 on the Respondent Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking repayment of Rs. 1 crore with further interest @ 19.50 % from 1st April, 2009 till payment being an admitted liability within 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice. However the Respondent Company failed to respond to the said notice and also failed and neglected to repay the amounts as called upon under the said notice. The Petitioners therefore, filed the present Company Petition on 12th October, 2009. The Respondent Company by its affidavit- in-reply, has contended that due to global recession, the Respondent Company is facing temporary financial crunch. It is, thereafter, also alleged in the affidavit-in-reply that the finance facilities were in mutual interest of the parties and the Respondent Company was to repay the amount to the Petitioner as per the financial conforts of the Respondent Company. Though these submissions are not repeated across the bar, the same are totally devoid of merits and 3 made only for the sake of making some submissions in the affidavit-in-reply. The Petitioners have therefore, submitted that the Respondent company is unable to pay its debts and deserves to be wound up. The Petitioners have also sought the appointment of the Official Liquidator as a Provisional Liquidator of the Respondent Company. 4. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the Respondent Company is unable to pay its debts. The petition is accordingly admitted. Since Company Petition No. 477 of 2009 filed by the SICOM Limited against the Respondents is already admitted by this Court by its order dated 9th September, 2009 and also advertised, issuing of Advertisements in the present petition is dispensed with. 5. Mr. Anant Iyengar, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents on instructions makes a statement that the Respondents shall not dispose of any of their movable assets except in the ordinary course of business and shall not dispose of any of their immovable assets without the permission of this Court. The said statement is accepted. 4 6. The Company Application No. 1172 of 2009 is disposed of. 7. Place the Company Petition for final hearing on 12th March, 2010, high on board, alongwith Company Petition No. 477 of 2009. [ S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]