((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.735 OF 2004 IN B.I.F.R. CASE NO.57 OF 1987 B.I.F.R. Petitioner Vs. M/s.Gaekwar Mills Limited Respondent WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.228 OF 1987 Jaysunth Dye Chem. Pvt.Ltd. Petitioner versus Gaikwar Mills Limited Respondent Mr.Akbar Rizvi i/by Mulla & Mulla & CBC for petitioner. Mrs.S.N.Bhagwat for The Majoor Mahajan Sangh. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 04th February 2008 PC : 1. The B.I.F.R. by its order dated 21st January 2003, after evaluating the materials before it, was of the view that there was no possibility of reviving the respondent company as the net worth of the respondent company has totally eroded. In this backdrop the BIFR recommended winding-up of the respondent company. Indeed, the said order ((-2-)) MST was carried in appeal. However, it is seen that the said appeal has been finally decided on 16th April 2001. In view of dismissal of the appeal preferred by the respondent company, the recommendation of B.I.F.R. to wind-up the respondent company, stands confirmed. 2. This company petition has been entertained by the Company Court suo-motu on the basis of recommendation made by the B.I.F.R.. Besides the present suo-motu petition, there is another petition pending in this Court against the respondent company praying for winding-up of the respondent company being Company Petition No.228 of 1987. The said petition is founded on the claim that the petitioner therein had sold, delivered and supplied goods to the respondent company and the respondent company was indebted to the petitioners therein to the extent of Rs.1,56,409=63 Ps. and interest accrued thereon being Rs.26,436=87 Ps. aggregating to Rs.1,82,846=50 Ps.. Out of the said amount, the respondent company made payment to the petitioner therein to the extent of Rs.59,794=82 Ps. only. The respondent company, in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioners therein, having failed to pay the outstanding dues, the ((-3-)) MST petitioners issued statutory notice on 25th January 1985 followed by communications dated 20th August 1985 and 5th September 1986. 3. In spite of the statutory notice, the respondent failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues. There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the respondent had raised dispute regarding quality, quantity or price of the goods supplied by the petitioners therein. It necessarily follows that the respondent company is unable to pay its debt. The respondent company has not bothered even to file reply affidavit to controvert the assertions made in the Company Petition No.228 of 1987. 4. Insofar as the former suo-motu petition is concerned, this Court admitted the same on 14th October 2004 and has been pending in this Court. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent has taken any steps for revival of the company. As there is no likelihood of revival of the respondent company and as the net worth of the respondent company having completely eroded, as is rightly opined by the B.I.F.R., which opinion I am in agreement with, for that reason the inevitable conclusion is to direct winding-up ((-4-)) MST of the respondent company. 5. In the circumstances, Company Petition No.228 of 1987 is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). As far as Company Petition No.735 of 2004 is concerned, no further and separate orders are required therein in view of the disposal of the cognate company petition being Company Petition No.228 of 1987. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)