-: 1 :- SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 1060 OF 1999 COMPANY PETITION NO. 1060 OF 1999 COMPANY PETITION NO. 1060 OF 1999 Mr. Hitesh Shah .. Petitioner. V/s. M/s. Sudesh Sea Foods Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 1061 OF 1999 COMPANY PETITION NO. 1061 OF 1999 COMPANY PETITION NO. 1061 OF 1999 Mr. Naresh Nagindas Sheth .. Petitioner. v/s. M/s. Sudesh Sea Foods Ltd. .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 504 OF 2000 COMPANY PETITION NO. 504 OF 2000 COMPANY PETITION NO. 504 OF 2000 Lloyd Insulations (I) Ltd., .. Petitioner. vs. M/s. Sudesh Sea Foods Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION N0. 544 OF 2000 COMPANY PETITION N0. 544 OF 2000 COMPANY PETITION N0. 544 OF 2000 Mr.Pradeep Chablani .. Petitioner. vs. M/s. Sudesh Sea Foods Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 233 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION NO. 233 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION NO. 233 OF 2001 APL CO.PTE.LTD., Singapore .. Petitioner. vs. -: 2 :- M/s. Sudesh Sea Foods Ltd., .. Respondent. --- Mr.Bipin Joshi for the petitioner in company petition nos. 1060/1999 and 1061/1999. Mr. K.B. Purohit i/by Purohit & Purohit for the petitioner in company petition no. 504/2000. Mr.Pankaj Pandit i/by Pragna Thakkar for IDBI-Secured Creditors in comapny petition no. 504/2000. Mr. S.Satpute i/by M/s. S. Satpute & Co. for the petitioner in petition no.544/2000. Mr.K.R.Shriram for the petitioner in comapny petition no. 233/2001. --- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : . All the above petitions can be disposed of by this common order as the relief claimed in all these petitions is for winding up of the respondent company. 2. The petitioner in the respective petitions claims that the following outstanding dues are payable by the respondent company in the respective petition. In company petition no. 1060/1999 the petitioner claims that the outstanding dues payable by the respondent company is to the extent of Rs.3,72,293.25ps., whereas in company petition no. 1061/1999 the outstanding dues are Rs.8,12,628.85 ps.; in company petition no. 504/2000 -: 3 :- the dues are Rs.01,05,18,865/-, in company petition no. 544/2000 the dues are Rs. 02,49,542/- and in company petition no. 233/2001 the dues are Rs. 8, 64,52,093. 3. From the figures of outstanding dues payable in the respective petition by the respondent company it is more than clear that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts. In fact after issuance of the notice, the respondent company has failed to appear and defend the present action. Obviously, the respondent company has no defence much less plausible defence in all these petitions. As the amount involved in all the petitions, if considered together, is huge and substantial and that clearly indicates that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts. In each of this petition statutory notice was duly served on the respondent company. In spite of the statutory notice, the respondent company has failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the respective petitioners. As aforesaid, the respondent company has not come forward to offer any explanation. 4. In the circumstances, all the petitions are made absolute. It is ordered that the respondent company be wound up with immediate effect. The Official Liquidator shall take over the assets and properties of the respondent company forthwith and proceed in accordance -: 4 :- with law. 5. At this stage, Mr. Pankaj Pandit, Advocate, submits that he represents the IDBI, who is one of the secured creditors. According to him the secured properties of the respondent company are already sold and the amount is appropriated by the secured creditors. The official liquidator may examine that aspect. If some properties or assets of the respondent company is left over, the official liquidator may forthwith take possession thereof and proceed in accordance with the law. 6. Insofar as the sale proceeds recovered by the secured creditors on account of the sale of the secured assets of the respondent company, it is needless to observe that the same will be subject to such directions that may be issued by the official liquidator, including requiring the secured creditors to bring back such amount, as may be ordered, keeping in mind the mandate of section 529-A of the Indian Companies Act. All questions in that behalf are left open. (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.) -: 5 :- .....