1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.156 OF 1995 In the matter of M/s.Growel Times Ltd., incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered ofrfice at Gat No.1104, 1105, 1106, Village Ranjangaon Ganpathi, Tal.Shirur, Dist.Pune, PUNE – 419 209. CAN Bank Financial Services Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Canara Bank having their Registered Office at 19/5 and 19/6 Kareem Towers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore 560 052 and their Bombay Office at Rajabahadur Mansion, 1st floor, 32 B.S. Marg, Bombay 400 023. ...Petitioners ......... None present. ......... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED :- JULY 3, 2009. ORDER : 1. By this Petition, Petitioners pray for winding up of Respondent Company on the ground that the Company is unable to pay its debt. The Petitioners had extended bridge loan for import of machinery to the Respondent Company. The 2 Respondent Company executed security document such as demand promissory note dated 15th January 1992, letter of undertaking dated 15th January 1992, take delivery letter to demand promissory note dated 15th January 1992. By the execution of these documents, the Respondent admit its liability to pay amount of Rs.Two Crores to the Petitioners when demanded. 2. According to Petitioners, in spite of persistent demand, the Respondents failed and neglected to pay the amount. With the result, Petitioners send statutory notice to the Respondent Company which, it is stated, is duly served. In spite of notice, no response was received from the Respondents. Consequently, the present Petition has been filed on 14th February 1995. The Respondents were duly served with the present Petition. However, none appears for the Respondents. The record indicates that even BIFR has recommended winding up of the Respondent Company in larger interest of the public. This Petition has been admitted on 12th July 2002 and has been duly advertised. No reply has been filed to counter the assertions 3 made in the Petition. In this backdrop, the inevitable conclusion is that the Respondent Company is unable to pay its debt. Accordingly, this Court has no option but to allow the Petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 3. Accordingly, Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)