IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.67 OF 1999 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2008 State Bank of India & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Worldlink Finance Ltd. ...Respondents ...... Mr.O.M.Mohandas i/b Little & Co. for Petitioners. Mr.Tushar Goradia with Ms.Nisha Parmar for Respondents (Applicant in CA/50/2008). ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DECEMBER 4, 2008. DECEMBER 4, 2008. DECEMBER 4, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioners had invested sum of Rupees Two Crores by way of non convertible debentures on terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent Company failed and neglected to repay the amount when it became due under the said arrangement. Inspite of repeated requests, since : 2 : amount was not forthcoming, Petitioners sent statutory notice to the Respondent Company calling upon the Respondent Company to forthwith pay the outstanding dues. The fact that the amount was repayable on demand, is not disputed by the Respondent Company at all. Inspite of service of statutory notice, the Respondent Company failed and neglected to pay any amount under the Agreement dated 24th September 1992. Eventually, present Petition has been filed on 12th November 1998. 3. During the pendency of this Petition, the Respondents filed brief reply dated 5th October 2006 pointing out that the Company was propounding a Scheme for payment to its unsecured creditors. It appears that in Company Petition No.234 of 2006, the Scheme propounded by the Company was accepted on certain conditions. However, it now transpires that the Respondent Company has not bothered to comply with the said terms and conditions, as no further affidavit has been filed by the Respondent Company to assert that fact. Besides, the Advocate for the Respondent Company is not in a position to positively state anything in that behalf for want : 3 : of instructions. According to the Petitioners, no payment has been received so far by the Petitioners, the Scheme propounded by the Company as approved by this Court on 30th June 2006 notwithstanding. It necessarily follows that the Company is unable to pay its debt. 4. In the circumstances, the only option is to order winding up of the Respondent Company as the amount repayable to the Petitioners is quite substantial (in the sum of Rs.3,31,43,117/- (Rupees Three Crores Thirty-one Lakhs Forty-three Thousand One Hundred Seventeen) on the date of filing of the Petition. 5. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Ordered accordingly. . In view of the above, Company Application No.50 of 2008 is disposed of. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.