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.786 OF 2005 B.I.F.R. ..Petitioner. V/s. The Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd...Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.591 OF 1998 Sumer Investments & Finance Co. ..Petitioner. V/s. The Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd...Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.84 OF 2001 Nath Industrial Chemical Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. The Pharmaceutical Products (India) Ltd...Respondent. Mr.Himanshu Kode i/b. Y.P.Yagnik for Petitioner in CP No.591 of 1998. Ms.Sushma Kadam i/b. Arvind Rathod & Co. for Petitioner in CP No. 84 of 2001. Suo Moto in CP No.786 of 2003. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 16, 2008. DATE : JANUARY 16, 2008. DATE : JANUARY 16, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. None appears for the Respondent though served. No reply has been filed to contest any of 2 these Petitions. 2. In so far as Company Petition No.786 of 2005 is concerned that has been registered on the basis of report sent by the BIFR recommending winding up of the Respondent company dated 10th December, 2004. In my order dated 29th September, 2005, I have upheld the opinion recorded by the BIFR that it is just and equitable to order winding up of the Respondent as the net worth of the Respondent has turned negative and there is no possibility of revival of the Respondent company. There is nothing on record to take a different view from the finding, so recorded. It therefore, follows that the Company deserves to be wound up on the basis of the material made available by the BIFR, which clearly establishes that the net worth of the Respondent company has turned negative and it is not possible to revive the company. Besides, recommendation of the BIFR, we have before us two company petitions filed by the creditors of the Respondent company. 3. In Company Petition No.591 of 1998, the Petitioner asserts that intercorporate deposit was given to the Respondent company in the sum of Rs.25 Lakhs(Rs.Twenty five Lakhs only). The Petitioner has 3 produced receipts as well as the promissory notes executed by the authorised signatories of the respondent. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the said claim, which is supported by documents. According to the Petitioners, in that Petition the amount remained unpaid inspite of the repeated reminders. As a result, the Petitioners gave statutory notice on 24th April, 1998, which was duly served upon the Respondent, as can be seen from the acknowledgment Exh.I. The Respondent did not chose either to pay the outstanding dues or offer any explanation to the statutory notice. As the amount remained unpaid, the Petitioners have filed present Petition for winding up of the respondent company. As mentioned earlier, inspite of statutory notice, the Respondent has not bothered to pay the outstanding amount nor filed any reply affidavit to controvert the case made out by the Petitioners. From the facts, which are established from the record supported by the documentary evidence, it necessarily follows that the Respondent company has failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues inspite of the statutory notice and that the Respondent company is unable to pay its debt. 4. In so far as the Company Petition No.84 of 4 2001 is concerned, the claim of the Petitioner is on the basis of goods sold, delivered and supplied to the Respondent from time to time, as demanded by them. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent never raised any issue about quality, quantity or price of the goods, so supplied. The Petitioner claims that the aggregate value of the goods supplied by the Petitioner is in the sum of Rs.1,08,834/- (Rs.One lakh eight thousand eight hundred thirty four only). Besides the value of the goods, the Petitioner also claims interest at the rate of 24% per annum, which according to the Petitioner is agreed rate of interest. Even if the claim for the interest component is ignored, the fact remains that the Petitioner is claiming outstanding dues, which are far in excess of the statutory amount against the respondent company. The Respondent company has not offered any explanation for non-payment of the said amount. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, having regard to the fact situation of both the Petitions, referred to above, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the Respondent has failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the respective Petitioners. The Respondent is obviously unable to 5 pay its debt. As a necessary corollary, all these Petitions will have to be allowed. 6. It is therefore, ordered that the Respondent company be wound up with immediate effect. The Provisional Liquidator appointed by this Court in Company Petition No.786 of 2001 shall take over as Official Liquidator of the Respondent company and discharge all functions, as may be necessary under the provisions of the Companies Act. 7. All these Petitions are disposed off on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)