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 COMPANY PETITION NO.842 OF 1999 Greaves Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Circle-KS Polyset Industries Private Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.Ashish Kamat a/w. Ms.Mhapankar i/b. V.S.Deshpande & Co. for petitioner. None for respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. None appears for the Respondent though served. No reply has been filed to controvert the assertions made in this Petition. 2. The case made out by the Petitioner, which is substantiated by the contemporaneous record is that the Petitioner has sold, delivered and supplied goods to the Respondent company, as per its requirement in the aggregate sum of Rs.22,11,380/-. The Respondent company did offer part-payment to the Petitioner, but remained in arrears of principal sum of Rs.25,48,298.70 inspite of repeated reminders. There 2 is nothing on record to indicate that the Respondent raised any dispute regarding quality, quantity and price of the goods at any point of time. As a matter of fact, the Respondent acknowledged their liability to pay sum of Rs.26,79,098.75 on January 98. The Respondent thereafter, offered part-payment and assured to pay the remaining amount in instalment. Once again that promise was not fulfilled, the Petitioner eventually sent statutory notice on 21st August, 1998. That notice was duly served on the Respondent as can be seen from the acknowledgement produced by the Petitioner. Inspite of the statutory notice neither any amount was paid to the Petitioner nor any reply was received. Eventually, the Petitioner was forced to file present Petition praying for winding up of the Respondent company. Once again before admission of this Petition, the Respondent was duly served but did not chose to remain present to contest the present proceedings. As aforesaid, even now the Respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court nor controverted assertions made in the Petition. As already observed earlier, the Petitioner has established the case made out in the Petition and in fact, the said case has remained uncontroverted for which reason, I have no hesitation in concluding that the Respondent is 3 unable to pay its debt having failed and neglected to pay the same. 3. Accordingly, this Petition ought to succeed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)