IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.868 OF 1999 Nikunj Gunwant Shah ...Petitioner Vs. Metalco India Ltd. ...Respondents ALONG WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.918 OF 1999 Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioners Vs. Metalco India Ltd. ...Respondents ...... None for Petitioners. None for Respondents. Mr.S.Ramakantha, Dy.Official Liquidator is present as Provisional Liquidator. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 27, 2008. MARCH 27, 2008. MARCH 27, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Both these Petitions are proceeded together as it pertain to same Company. : 2 : 2. Insofar as the abovesaid Company Petitions are concerned, the Petitioners pray for winding up of the Respondent Company on the assertion that the Petitioners had sold, delivered and supplied goods to the Respondent Company from time to time as requested by the Respondents. The Respondents, at no point of time, raised dispute regarding the quality, quantity or price of the goods so supplied. According to the Petitioners, total outstanding dues payable by the Respondents in this Petition was in the sum of Rs.91,708/- (NEI - Petitioner in C.P.868 of 1999) Rs.1,47,353/- (For NEEPL - Petitioner in C.P. 918 of 1999) together with interest thereon as agreed between the parties. The Petitioners issued statutory notice as the amount remained unpaid inspite of repeated reminders. The statutory notice was duly served on the Respondent Company as is stated in the Petition. 3. Inspite of statutory notice, the Respondent Company neither paid the amount nor offered any explanation for non-payment. As a : 3 : result, Petitioners have approached this Court by way of present Petition by winding up of the Respondent Company. The Respondent Company was duly served before considering the Petition for admission. However, inspite of service, the Respondents chose not to appear before the Court nor filed any reply affidavit to controvert the assertions made in the Petition. This Court, therefore, in terms of order dated 30th August 2001 not only proceeded to admit the Petition but also appointed provisional liquidator. As aforesaid, even now, the Respondent Company has not chosen to appear nor filed any reply affidavit to counter the assertions made in the Petition. The claim of the Petitioners is substantiated by the documents on record. In my opinion, it necessarily follows that the Respondents having failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues inspite of statutory notice, are unable to pay its debt. 4. As aforesaid, the Respondent Company has not chosen to appear even now nor has filed any reply affidavit controverting the assertions made in the Petition. The only conclusion that can be : 4 : deduced from this situation is that the Respondent Company is unable to pay its debt. 5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Respondent Company be wound up with immediate effect. The provisional liquidator to take over the assets and properties of the Respondent Company if already not done in the capacity of the Official Liquidator and discharge all the duties as may be required by the provisions of the Companies Act to effectuate the order of winding up passed today. 6. Both Petitions allowed on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.