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.226 OF 1999 M/s.Sintex Industries Ltd. (Plastics Division) ..Petitioners. V/s. Chemiequip Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.780 OF 2005 B.I.F.R. V/s. Chemiequip Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.K.S.Tripathi for petitioners in CP.226 of 1999. None for respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. None appears for the Respondent company though served. No reply has been filed to controvert the issues raised in both these Petitions. 2. In so far as Company Petition No.226 of 1999 is concerned, the same is founded on the assertion that the Petitioners had sold, delivered and supplied goods to the Respondent company as per its turn, required from time to time. The Respondent at no 2 point of time raised any dispute regarding quality, quantity or price of the goods, so supplied. The aggregate amount of goods supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondent company is stated to be Rs.1,62,337/-. The Petitioners have produced documents to establish the said claim, which remained uncontroverted. Inspite of the repeated demands as the amount remained outstanding, Petitioner issued statutory notice, which was duly served on the Respondent. Even then, the Respondent failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues. As a result, the Petitioners have approached this Court praying for winding up of the Respondent company. Respondent Company inspite of service of the present Petition has not chosen to appear before the Court nor has filed any reply affidavit to controvert the case made out in the Petition. It necessarily follows that the Respondent company has failed and neglected to pay outstanding dues and is unable to pay its debt. 3. Besides, the claim of the Petitioners in Company Petition No.226 of 1999, there is yet another Petition pending against the Respondent company for action of winding up. That Petition being Company Petition No.780 of 2005 arises out of the recommendation made by the BIFR to wind up the 3 Respondent company on the opinion reached that the net assets of the company have completely eroded and it is not possible to revive the company for which reason it will in the public interest to wind up the Respondent company. The record indicates that the opinion so reached by the BIFR in its Order dated 10th May, 2002 has attained finality. I am in complete agreement with the opinion recorded by the BIFR, which is supported by the materials on record forwarded alongwith the report of the BIFR to this Court for initiating action of winding up against the Respondent company. It is also noticed that this Court appointed provisional Official Liquidator to take over the assets of the Respondent Company. 4. Taking overall view of the matter, I am inclined to accede to the request for winding up of the Respondent company made by the private Petitioner as well as recommendation of the BIFR. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Respondent company be wound up with immediate effect. The Official Liquidator shall hereinafter discharge duties of the Official Liquidator in exercise of powers under provisions of Companies Act. Both the Petitions are disposed off on the above terms. 4 (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)