1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.129 OF 2008 B.I.F.R. ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.D.K.Chemoplast Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.823 OF 1998 Nenshi Korshi Shah(HUF) ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.D.K.Chemoplast Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.897 OF 2002 M/s.Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.D.K.Chemoplast Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.373 OF 2001 M/s.Lime Chemicals Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.D.K.Chemoplast Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.Jayant Gaikwad i/b. Ajay N. Khandhar for petitioner in CP no.823 of 1998. Mr.N.R.Pradhan a/w. K.C.Prusty for petitioner in CP 373 of 2001. None for respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J 2 DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. The Company Registrar has placed before me report of the BIFR dated 1st November, 1999 recommending winding up of the Respondent company in public interest. The said Report refers to materials on record on the basis of which the BIFR has opined that the Respondent company was not likely to make its net worth exceed its accumulated losses within reasonable time while meeting all its financial obligations and that the Company was not likely to become viable in future, for which reason, it is just equitable and in public interest to wind up the Respondent company under section 20(1) of the Act. It appears that said opinion was taken up in appeal before AAIFR being Appeal No.58 of 2000. Even the said Appeal has been dismissed on April 13,2000 on the finding that the Respondent company is very heavily indebted and it is not possible to work out any rehabilitation scheme. In other words, the opinion recorded by the BIFR strongly recommending winding up of the Respondent company has been confirmed by the AAIFR. On going through the materials of said report I have no hesitation in accepting opinion so reached by the BIFR and confirmed by the Appellate authority. 3 2. On this finding, no further enquiry is necessary, as it would be appropriate to order winding up of the Respondent company. Besides the report of the BIFR, there are already three company Petitions pending in this Court against the Respondent company praying for winding up of the Respondent company. 3. In Company Petition No.823 of 1998, the Petitioner therein asserts that the Petitioner had sold, delivered and supplied goods to the Respondent company from time to time at the request of the Respondent. On goods so delivered, the Respondent at no point of time raised any dispute regarding quality, quantity or price of the said goods. As the amount remained outstanding inspite of repeated reminders, the Petitioner in the said Petition caused to send statutory notice. Inspite of the statutory notice, the outstanding amount to the extent of Rs.49,343/- remained unpaid. In the circumstances, present Petition has been filed. Inspite of the notice duly served on the Respondent, the Respondent has not bothered to appear nor filed any reply affidavit controverting the stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner. Going by the averments in Petition, which are supported by documentary evidence and the 4 facts stated on affidavit having remained uncontroverted, I have no hesitation in concluding that the Respondent company has failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues to the Petitioner therein and that the Respondent is unable to pay its debt. 4. There is yet another Company Petition pending against the Respondent company being Company Petition No.897 of 2002 involving claim of Rs.5,64,639/- for goods sold, delivered to the Respondent even in the said Petition. The Petitioner has asserted that the goods were sold, delivered and supplied to the Respondent Company as per requirement of the Respondent. At no point of time the Respondent raised dispute regarding quality, quantity or price of the goods. That inspite of the statutory notice, the Respondent failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount. Even in this Company Petition, no reply affidavit has been filed by the Respondent inspite of service. I have no hesitation in taking the view that the Respondent company has failed and neglected to pay the outstanding debt payable to the Petitioner. The only inference that can be drawn is that the Respondent is unable to pay its debt. 5. As aforesaid, there is one more Company Petition pending against the Respondent company being 5 Company Petition No.373 of 2001, wherein it is asserted that the Petitioner therein sold, delivered and supplied goods to the Respondent company from time to time. The outstanding claim against the Respondent company in the said petition is to the extent of Rs.7,15,915/-. Even in this Petition, inspite of service of statutory notice, the Respondent failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues. No reply has been filed to controvert the assertion made in the Petition, which has been substantiated by the documentary evidence on record. 6. Taking over all view of the matter, I have no hesitation in directing that the Respondent company be wound up with immediate effect. The Official Liquidator shall immediately take over possession of the assets and properties of the Respondent company, so as to discharge all his duties and obligations in accordance with the law under the provisions of Companies Act. 7. All these Petitions are disposed of on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)