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.932 OF 1998 India Book Distributors (Bombay) Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Tangerine Informatique Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.999 OF 1998 Development Investment Trustee Co.Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Tangerine Informatique Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.1000 OF 1999 Central Bank of India. ..Petitioner. V/s. Tangerine Informatique Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.T.N.Tripathi for petitioner. None for respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. None appears for the Respondent company though served. In all three Company Petitions are pending against the Respondent company praying for winding up of the Respondent company. 2 2. The first Petition filed against the Respondent company is Company Petition No.932 of 1998, which is founded on the claim that the petitioner therein had sold, delivered and supplied CD-Rom products and U.S. and U.K. computer magazines and books to the Respondent company as requested by the Company. The aggregate value of the said goods is stated to be Rs.1,89,000/-. According to the Petitioner, as the said amount remained outstanding inspite of repeated demands, the Petitioner therein sent statutory notice on 8th August, 1998. The said statutory notice was duly received by the Respondent company, as can be seen from the acknowledgment "Exh. Ia" to the Petition. Inspite of service, the Respondent has not bothered to appear in the said Petition nor file any reply affidavit. In that sense, assertions made in the said Petition have remained uncontroverted, which clearly go to show that the Respondent failed and neglected to ay its debt and is unable to pay the same. 3. The second Petition filed against the Respondent company for the same relief being Company Petition No.999 of 1998 is founded on the assertions 3 that the Petitioner was allotted 40,000 Zero Coupon Fully Convertible Debentures, which position is acknowledged by the Respondent company in its communication dated 8th December, 1994. According to the Petitioner Respondent company illegally retained, used and enjoyed the amount of Rs.52 Lakhs paid by the Petitioner and failed and neglected to repay the same inspite of the repeated demands. As a result, the Petitioner had sent statutory notice on 8th April, 1998. The Respondent has been duly served. No reply was received by the Petitioner to the said statutory notice for which reason the said Petitioners have filed Company Petition No.999 of 1998. As aforesaid, inspite of the service even in this Petition, the Respondent has not appeared nor filed any reply affidavit. In that sense, the assertions made in this Petition have remained uncontroverted, which clearly establishes the position that the Respondent Company has failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount and is unable to pay the same. 4. There is yet another Petition against the Respondent company praying for winding up being Company Petition No.1000 of 1999. The Petitioner asserts that the amount of Rs.One Crore was paid to 4 the Respondent company. In anticipation that secured Redeemable Non-convertible Debentures of the Respondent company will be issued to the Petitioner through private placement. Petitioner has neither received the said debentures nor the amount paid by the Petitioner inspite of repeated demand. As a result, Petitioner sent statutory notice on 24th November, 1998 which has been duly served on the Respondent. No reply was received against the statutory notice, nor the Respondent paid the outstanding dues of the Petitioner. As a result the present Petition is filed. Even in this Petition, the Respondent though served, has failed to appear or file any reply affidavit. In that sense, even in the present Petition, the assertions made in the Petition have remained uncontroverted, which clearly establishes that the Respondent company has failed and neglected to pay its due and is unable to pay the same. 5. Besides the three Petitions, it appears that BIFR proceedings were initiated in respect of the Respondent company, which however, have been rejected, as noted in the BIFR on-line report. Taking overall view of the matter, I have no hesitation in concluding that the Respondent is 5 unable to pay its debt. As a result, all the three Petitions are allowed. The same are made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 6. It appears that the Provisional Official Liquidator was appointed by the Company Court, who in turn has taken over possession of the three properties of the Respondent company. There is nothing on record to indicate that the situation has undergone change. Accordingly, all the three Company Petitions deserve to be allowed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)