1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.288 OF 2009 Aarti Industries Limited .. Petitioner Versus Taj Pharmaceuticals Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Devanshu P. Desai for the petitioner CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 9th April, 2010 P.C.: 1. This Company Petition is for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petition was admitted on 24th September, 2009. Claim of the petitioner against the respondent company is for a sum of Rs.9,95,000/-/ 3. The authorized signatory of the respondent by his hand written letter dated 20th October, 2008 addressed to the petitioner, has informed the petitioner that the respondent shall settle the account of the petitioner with the respondent within 15 days as per the discussion held with the representative of the petitioner and shall make payment in installments as per the mutual understanding. By another letter dated 26th November, 2008, addressed to the petitioner, the respondent has expressed its regret for not making payment of Rs.9,95,000/- and for not issuing Form 'H'. The 2 respondent has recorded its willingness to make the said payment in installment as per the mutual understanding of both the parties. Despite the aforesaid letters, the respondent failed and neglected to make any payments to the petitioner. 4. Statutory notice dated 12th February, 2009 was served on the respondent. However, the respondent failed and neglected to respond to the statutory notice or to make payment as called upon by the petitioner. The Company had refused to accept service of the petition when the petitioner tried to serve the same before Admission of the Petition. Under the directions of this Court, the office attempted to serve a copy of the petition on the respondent company but the respondent company once again refused to accept service on the ground that the company has already received the same through postal department. Under the circumstances the petitioner was admitted by an order dated 24th September, 2009. 5. The Petition was thereafter advertised, as set out in the affidavit proving publication of March, 2010. The Office once again attempted to serve the notice to the respondent company under Rule 28 of the Company Court (Rules) alongwith a copy of the petitioner. Once again the company refused to accept the service. In view thereof, the entire contents of the petition have remained uncontroverted till date. I am therefore satisfied that the company is unable to pay its debts and deserves to be wound up. 3 6. Under the circumstances, the company petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)