THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Application No.1964 of 2009 in Company Petition No.164 of 2004 Date : 29th March, 2010 Between: M/s.Targof Pure Drugs Ltd. (in liquidation), rep. by the Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Applicant a n d M/s.Ganapati Pharma rep by its proprietor Sri Vijay Sharma, C-11, Geeta Nagar, BIJNORE – 246 701. …Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Application No.1964 of 2009 In Company Petition No.164 of 2004 ORDER: This is an application filed by the Official Liquidator representing M/s.Targof Pure Drugs Ltd. (in liquidation) under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 r/w. Rules 9 and 11(b) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking a decree against the respondent for a sum of Rs.22,846/- with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 11.05.2007 till date of realization together with costs. 2. By order dated 19.04.2007 passed in C.P.No.164 of 2004, M/s.Targof Pure Drugs Ltd. was directed to be wound up. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as liquidator of the company (in liquidation). As per the information submitted by the Ex- Managing Director of the company (in liquidation), the respondent is due a sum of Rs.22,846/-. A notice dated 06.2.2007 was issued by the Official Liquidator to the respondent demanding to pay a sum of Rs.22,846/-. The respondent issued a reply dated 15.12.2007 requesting for some adjustment of the amounts payable to it. But, the respondent has not furnished any proof of its entitlement to get money from the applicant company. Hence, this application by the Official Liquidator on behalf of the applicant company seeking the relief stated supra. 3. Notice to the respondent has been ordered on 02.12.2009. Since notice sent to the respondent returned un-served, the applicant company has been permitted to take out notice to the respondent by way of substitute service vide order dated 19.01.2010 passed in C.A.No.2062 of 2009. Despite service being taken out to the respondent by way of publication, the respondent did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. Hence, the respondent came to be set ex parte on 22.03.2010. 4. The applicant company filed affidavit of R.Ramakrishna Reddy in lieu of chief-examination as PW.1 together with documents, 35 in number, which were exhibited as Ex.A1 to A35. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the official liquidator and perused the evidence of PW.1 and the documents, which have been exhibited as Exs.A1 to A35. 6. Ex.A1 is the certified true copy of the debtors ledger of the applicant company for the year 2005-2006. As per the entries in the debtors ledger, the respondent has to pay a sum of Rs.22,846/-. Notice has been issued to the respondent demanding to pay the said amount. Though the respondent claims that certain amount it too entitled to get from the applicant company, no material has been placed on record to substantiate it. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A35 amply proved the claim of the applicant Company (in liquidation) against the respondent. 7. Accordingly, the Company Application is allowed and there shall be a decree against the respondent to the extent of Rs.22.840/- with interest at 12% per annum from 11.05.2007 till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization with costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:29th March, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Application No.1964 of 2009 in Company Petition No.164 of 2004 Dated:29th March, 2010