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.694 OF 1999 Fortis Financial Services Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Panchal Sleek Plast Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.Jatin Sanghai i/b. Dholakia Associates 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 counter assertions made in this Petition. 2. From the averments in the Petition which are substantiated by the contemporaneous documents on record it is seen that lease agreement was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent company whereunder the Petitioner at the request of the Company agreed to give on lease machinery more specifically described in Schedule for a period of 48 months on terms and conditions provided in the said agreement. The Respondent company was liable to pay 2 the amount specified in the said lease agreement, however, remained in default. The Respondent has acknowledged its liability, as can be noticed from the letter dated 25th August, 1997 sent by the Respondent(Exh.B). The Respondent has also paid part amount as can be seen from Exh.C and D. However, as substantial amount remained unpaid to the extent of Rs.11,53,282/-, the Petitioner eventually sent statutory notice on 3rd February, 1999. The Petitioner has produced acknowledgement of service of the said statutory notice. The Respondent neither paid the outstanding dues nor reply to the statutory notice. As a result whereof, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present Petition praying for winding up of the Respondent company. 3. Before admission of this Petition in terms of the Order dated 14th December, 1999, the Respondent was duly served. Even at that stage, the Respondent did not bother to appear before the Court nor filed any reply affidavit. As aforesaid, even now the Respondent has not chosen to appear nor file reply affidavit to controvert the assertions made in the Petition. It necessarily follows that the Respondent has failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues and is unable to pay its debt. 3 4. In this view of the matter, the Petition deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 5. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)