((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.498 OF 1996 Kamlesh Kumar Mahipal Petitioner versus M/s.Mega Meditex Limited Respondent WITH B.I.F.R. CASE NO.37 OF 1996 B.I.F.R. Petitioner versus M/s.Mega Meditex Limited Respondent None present for parties. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 09th January 2008 PC : 1. The company petition has been filed under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the assertion that the petitioner company provided services to the respondent company as demanded by them from time to time at their factory at Taloja. The petitioner asserts that it was agreed between the parties that the amount of freight as mentioned in the Lorry Receipt should be made over to the petitioner as soon as ((-2-)) MST the goods were delivered to the factory at Taloja. It is further stated that it was agreed between the parties that failing to pay such freight amount in time will result in liability of interest to be borne by the respondent @ 14% p.a.. According to the petitioner, the respondent was liable to pay in respect of outstanding bills aggregating to sum of Rs.2,35,079=43 Ps.. 2. In spite of repeated reminders, as the respondent company failed to pay the amount, the petitioner issued statutory notice. The petitioner also asserts that the respondent company was becoming a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985 (as amended) and further the respondent has made a reference to the BIFR.. The petitioner asserts that at no point of time the respondent disputed the correctness of the bills/invoices raised by the petitioner payable by the respondent from time to time in relation to the services rendered. In other words, the claim of the petitioner is that the respondent has failed and neglected to pay its debt. ((-3-)) MST 3. Besides present petition, the BIFR in Case No.37 of 1996 in relation to the respondent company vide order dated 29th June 1998 has recommended winding-up of the respondent company as the net worth of the respondent company has eroded. I have had the benefit of going through the said order and report submitted by BIFR to this Court. I am in agreement with the opinion recorded by the BIFR that the circumstances from record do indicate that the net worth of the respondent company has eroded and the respondent company cannot be rehabilitated nor any serious offer of rehabilitation has been made by the company. The BIFR has opined that it is just, equitable and in public interest that the respondent company should be wound-up under section 20(1) of the Act. 4. Although the respondent has been served with the company petition, has not bothered to appear. No reply has been filed to controvert. There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the net worth of the respondent company has improved. From the assertions made in the petition which have remained uncontroverted and which are supported by documents on record, I find no hesitation in acceding to the request of ((-4-)) MST ordering winding-up of the respondent company. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 5. In view of this order, reference being BIFR No.37 of 1996 also stands disposed off. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)