1 cp93-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.93 OF 2010 Chaturvedi Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. M/s.Excellent Furnishing Point Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent Mr.Sunil Chaturvedi for the Petitioner. Mr.Jafar B. Shaikh for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 28TH JULY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This is a petition for winding up the Respondent company on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. 2. By a letter dated 7.1.2009, the Respondent authorized the Petitioner to represent it for the purpose of raising finance from banks and other financial institutions. It was agreed that the professional fees for these services would be 3.5% (net of T.D.S.) of the funds raised. An amount of Rs.51,000/- was paid in advance. 3. The Bank of Maharashtra by its letter dated 14.3.2009 sanctioned in favour of the Respondent a cash credit facility in the sum of Rs.3,25,00,000/- and a letter of credit (Inland/Import) facility in the sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/-. 4(A). By an e-mail message dated 17.3.2009, the Petitioner recorded that it has submitted a proposal on behalf of the Respondent to the Bank of 2 cp93-10 Maharashtra on 5.1.2009 and that the Bank of Maharashtra had granted the said facilities. The Respondent was requested to pay the Petitioner’s fees. (B). The Respondent by an e-mail message dated 17.3.2009, thanked the Petitioner and stated that its professional charges would be paid after the facilities were disbursed. 5. Under cover of a letter dated 14.9.2009, the Petitioner forwarded its invoice dated 31.3.2009 in the sum of Rs.21,68,788/-. This was presumably after the financial assistance was disbursed. There is no dispute that the financial assistance was disbursed by the Bank of Maharashtra. By a letter dated 20.10.2009, the Petitioner once again forwarded a copy of the invoice as requested by the Respondent. As the Respondent had failed to make payment, the Petitioner by its advocate’s letter dated 20.10.2009 demanded payment. 6. The Respondent for the first time by its letter dated 8.1.2010, contended that the Petitioner was not entitled to any payment because it has not rendered any services and demanded a refund of the initial amount of Rs.51,000/-. 7. Further correspondence ensued between the parties in the course of which each of them reiterated their rival contentions. The above correspondence substantiates the Petitioner’s submissions both in the petition as well as in the affidavit in rejoinder that it had rendered various services which enabled the Petitioner to obtain the facilities to the extent of Rs.5,75,00,000/- from the Bank of Maharashtra. There is no explanation as 3 cp93-10 regards certain important aspects. For instance, by the said e-mail message dated 17.3.2009, the Respondent agreed to pay the profession charges but only after the facilities had been disbursed by the Bank of Maharashtra. There was no dispute or denial on the part of the Respondent from March, 2009 till January, 2010 about its liability to pay the said charges. It is only upon the receipt of the Petitioner’s advocate letter dated 25.11.2009 that the Respondent for the first time by its letter dated 8.1.2010 denied its liability. There does not appear to be a bona-fide defence to the Petitioner’s claim. 8. In the circumstances, the following is passed :- i). The company is directed to deposit in this Court a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on or before 30.9.2010. ii). Upon the amount being deposited, the same shall be invested in a nationalized bank initially for a period of one year and thereafter for like periods of one year each. iii). In the event of the amount being so deposited and in the event of the Petitioner filing a suit within twelve weeks from the date of the Petitioner's advocate being informed of the same in writing, the amount shall stand transferred to the credit of that suit. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to make an application in the suit for withdrawal of the amount. iv). In the event of the suit not being filed as aforesaid, the petition shall stand dismissed and the amount with interest if any accrued thereon shall be refunded to the Respondent – company. v). In case of failure on the part of the company to deposit the 4 cp93-10 amount as aforesaid, the petition shall stand admitted and to be advertised in Free Press Journal, Maharashtra Times and Maharashtra Government Gazette. The Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court within four weeks from the date of default. Mr.Shaikh, waives service on behalf of the Respondent.