((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.678 OF 2000 WITH OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR’S REPORT DATED The Official Liquidator of Trident Steel Limited Petitioner versus Kanakdhara Castings Pvt.Ltd. Respondent WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.632 OF 1999 Bimpex Machines Pvt.Ltd. Petitioner versus Kanakdhara Castings Pvt.Ltd. Respondent Ashmita Sali with M.Dhruva & Co. for petitioner None for respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 18th March 2008 PC : 1. Insofar as Company Petition No.678 of 2000 is concerned, that is filed by the petitioner company who is incidentally in liquidation. Consequently, the said petition is pursued by the Official Liquidator. The claim in the said petition is founded on transaction of goods sold, ((-2-)) MST supplied and delivered to the respondent company. The respondent at no point of time raised any dispute regarding quality, quantity and price of the goods. In fact, the respondent company admitted its liability and offered cheque in the sum of Rs.14,99,480/- towards value of the goods supplied by the petitioner company. However, the said cheque was dishonoured. In spite of reminders as the petitioner did not receive the outstanding dues, the petitioner issued statutory notice which was duly served on the respondent. The respondent sent reply through advocate on 26th September 1999 disputing the fact that it had ever purchased the goods from the petitioner. In view of the afterthought plea taken on behalf of the respondent to protract the payment of outstanding dues, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition for winding-up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company is unable to pay its debt. 2. Although the respondent has been duly served, none appears for the respondent. The petition has been admitted on 5th December 2007. Admission of the petition has duly been advertised. In spite of service on the ((-3-)) MST respondent no appearance is made nor any reply affidavit is filed to counter the assertions made in the petition. The case made out in the petition has been substantiated by the petitioner and moreso, having remained uncontroverted, I have no hesitation in accepting the claim of the petitioner that the respondent company has failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues and is unable to pay its debt. On this finding, the petition deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Ordered accordingly. 3. Insofar as Company petition No.632 of 1999 is concerned, in view of the order passed in Company Petition No.678 of 2000, no further order is necessary. The petitioner will be free to pursue its claim before the Official Liquidator if so advised. All aspects in that behalf will be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. Disposed off accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)