1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 1217 OF 2000 Ispat Industries Limited formerly known as Nippon Denro Ispat Ltd. ... Petitioner Vs Deepak Machineries Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Ms. Sapna Raichure i/b T.N. Tripathi & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 22ND JUNE, 2010. P.C. : 1. This is a Company Petition for winding up the company, inter alia, on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. 2. I do not consider it necessary to deal with the facts in any detail. It is not even necessary to set out the facts in detail. The petition was admitted by my order dated 28th October, 2004. It is a detailed order which set out all the facts and considered all the defences raised on 2 behalf of the company. The company has remained absent. There is nothing on record which indicates that there had been any change in circumstances since the time the petition was admitted. Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has taken me through the facts as well as the judgment in detail. There is nothing which pursuades me to take a different view. 3. In fact, Mr. Khandeparkar pointed out that the judgment was challenged by the company by filing Appeal No.36 of 2005. By an order and judgment dated 25th March, 2001, the Division Bench dismissed the Appeal. 4. There are no other reasons which pursuade me to dismiss the petition or to grant any reliefs other than those prayed for by the Petitioner. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Khandeparkar, even while dismissing the Appeal, the Division Bench observed as under :- “6. So far as second defence is concerned, assuming that the Appellant-company is right in contending that its registered office is at Mahalaxmi, the subsequent two notices dated 8th March, 2000 and 21st July, 2000 were admittedly not addressed at Mahalaxmi office, therefore is no question of first notice getting merged with two 3 subsequent notices, since those notices are not statutory notices as they were not addressed at the registered office. Therefore, if we assumed that the petition is based on the statutory notice dated 14th October, 1999, where the amount claimed is Rs.1,87,00,000/-, and in the petition lesser amount was claimed because of payment made subsequent to that notice by the Appellant- company. In the petition certainly lesser amount than the one claimed in the statutory notice can be claimed after giving explanation for the same. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the learned single Judge for rejecting this submission.” 5. In the circumstances, the Petition is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) which read as under :- “(a) that the Company viz. Deepak Machineries Pvt. Ltd. be ordered to be Wound Up by and under the orders and direction of this Hon’ble Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. (b) that the Official Liquidator of this Hon’ble Court be appointed as Liquidator of the Company Deepak Machineries Pvt. Ltd., with all powers under the Companies Act, 1956 including the power to take charge of the assets, affairs, books of accounts, records, documents, papers, vouchers bill etc. of the Company.” 6. The company shall also pay the Petitioner costs fixed at Rs. 5,000/- which the Petitioner is at liberty to recover in the winding up proceedings.