HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Petition No.250 of 2010 (Dated : 16-06-2011) Between: M.Venkata Reddy Hanumantekdi, Abids, Hyd. …Petitioner A n d Mayura Aloy Industries Ltd., …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Petition No.250 of 2010 ORDER: This petition has been taken out under Sections 433(e) and 433(f), 434(1) read with Section 439(1)(b) and Rules 95 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 seeking for an order for winding up of the respondent company. 2. The petition averments, in brief, are:- The petitioner has been entrusted with the contract of construction of a compound wall under the work order issued by the respondent company. The petitioner had completed the entire work. However, the respondent failed to pay the amounts to which the petitioner is entitled to. According to the petitioner, a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was due together with interest at 18% per annum. Since the respondent failed to pay the amounts due, in spite of repeated demands, a statutory notice was issued on 03.12.2010. 3. Despite notice, the respondent did not pay the amount. Hence, the petitioner filed the instant application with a prayer stated supra. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 31.12.2010. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. 5. The respondent filed counter admitting his liability to pay Rs.10,00,000/-. The interest payable on the amount is also not disputed. However, the respondent pleads that the company suffered heavy losses and that the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation had seized the assets of the respondent company under Section 29 of the APSFC Act and sold all the properties. The respondent further states that due to lack of resources and mounting losses, it could not discharge the debts due to the petitioner. 6. The Company Petition came to be admitted on 16.3.2001. The petitioner filed affidavit of M.Venkat Reddy in lieu of chief- examination. 19 documents have been marked on his behalf as Exs.P-1 to P-19. The respondent did not choose to adduce any evidence on its behalf. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent admitted the amount due to the petitioner and sought for time. Despite granting sufficient time, the respondent failed to liquidate the liability. Learned counsel refers the letters addressed by the respondent company to the petitioner, which have been exhibited as Exs.P-13, P-14 and P-15. When these documents are marked as exhibits through Pw.1, the respondent did not choose to cross- examine him disputing its liability. Ex.P-5 is the Work Order dated 18.4.2002 issued by the respondent company, whereunder the petitioner has been directed to take up various civil works. The petitioner carried out several works worth of Rs.15 lakhs. The balance amount of Rs.10 lakhs has not been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner issued a statutory notice on 03.12.2010. Despite receipt of notice, the respondent did not choose to clear the amounts due to the petitioner. The evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-19 clearly establishes that the respondent company has become commercially insolvent. 9. Hence, I order winding up of the respondent company-Mayura Alloy Industries Limited. Notice of the order for winding up of Mayura Aloy Industries Limited, D.No.16-6-688, Kali Kaber, Chaderghat, Hyderabad shall be sent forthwith to the official liquidator in Form No.50 under Rule 109 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 enclosing a copy of the petition and affidavit filed in support of the petition. Pursuant to Rule 114, the Official Liquidator shall forthwith take into his custody or under his control all the properties and effects and the books and papers of the company and shall take necessary steps for that purpose. The order for winding up shall be drawn up in Form No.52 and two certified copies thereof shall be sent as per Rule 111 to the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator shall cause a sealed copy of the order served on the company as required by sub-rule(2) of Rule 111 and also serve true copy of the order on the Managing Director of the Company by registered post. The order for winding up of the company shall be advertised by the petitioner in Form No.53 in Hyderabad daily edition of “Deccan Chronicle” and also in Hyderabad edition of Telugu daily “Andhra Jyothi” within fourteen days. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Official Liquidator towards incidental expenses within four weeks. 10. Accordingly, the Company Petition is allowed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.16-06-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Petition No.250 of 2010 (Dated : 16-06-2011)