((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.876 OF 2003 B.I.F.R. Petitioner versus M/s.Prudential Polywebs Ltd. Respondent WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.625 OF 1999 Yogesh C. Shah Petitioner versus M/s.Prudential Polywebs Ltd. Respondent Parties and advocates absent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 14th March 2008 PC : 1. The former company petition is instituted on the basis of recommendation of B.I.F.R. to wind-up the respondent company having recorded a positive opinion that the net worth of the respondent company has completely eroded and has exceeded its cumulative losses and it is not possible to revive the company within reasonable time after paying all financial obligations. This opinion is recorded on 16th August 2000. In ((-2-)) MST spite of service the respondent has not bothered to appear nor filed any reply affidavit to place on record that after such opinion was recorded by the B.I.F.R. the situation has changed and that the company has made sufficient profits enabling revival of respondent company. 2. Insofar as opinion recorded by BIFR that the net worth of the respondent company is completely eroded, which is founded on the material referred to in the order dated 16th August 2000 passed by the BIFR, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the said finding. On the basis of the said material I would have no hesitation in upholding the opinion recorded by the B.I.F.R. that the respondent company deserves to be wound-up. On this finding, consequential orders will have to be passed against the respondent company. 3. Besides the recommendation by the B.I.F.R; there is another proceeding pending in this Court against the respondent company being Company Petition No.625 of 1999. In the said petition prayer for winding-up of the respondent company is made on the assertion that the respondent company is unable to pay its debt. The claim in ((-3-)) MST the said petition is on the basis that the petitioner in the said petition sold, delivered and supplied goods to the respondent company from time to time in November 1996 as requested by the respondent company. It is seen that the respondent company raised no dispute about the quality, quantity and price of the goods so supplied. However, the amount remained outstanding and unpaid. The materials placed on record in the said petition would substantiate the position that the respondent conceded its liability to pay the outstanding dues to the extent of Rs.11,07,500/-. In addition to that amount, the petitioner has claimed interest @ 21% p.a. for the outstanding payment. Even if the request for claim of interest is to be ignored for the time being, the claim regarding outstanding principal amount being far in excess of the statutory amount and the same is remained unpaid in spite of statutory notice, it necessarily follows that the respondent company has failed and neglected to pay its outstanding dues, for which reason it is unable to pay its debt. 4. As aforesaid, none appears for the respondent. Even in this petition no reply is ((-4-)) MST filed to controvert the assertions made by the petitioner. In the circumstances, these petitions deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 5. Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed by directing winding-up of respondent company and appointing the Official Liquidator to take over the assets and properties of the respondent company with all powers under Companies Act. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)