1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.52 OF 1997 M/s.Omega Shipping Pvt.Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.Vikram Projects Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.166 OF 1997 Gill & Co.Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.Vikram Projects Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.971 OF 1997 Ispat Finance Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.Vikram Projects Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.493 OF 1998 Wipro Finance Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.Vikram Projects Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.336 OF 1999 Pulsar International Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.Vikram Projects Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. 2 Ms. Gisele D’ Souza i/b. K.R.Shriram for petitioner in CP 52/97. Mr.Avinash Joshi i/b. Mulla & Mulla for petitioner in CP 166/97. Mrs. Anima Kapadia i/b. Daphtary Ferreira & Diwan for petitioner in CP 971/97. Ms. Dipti Raja i/b. Dhru & Co. for petitioner in CP 493/98. Ms.Usha Rahi i/b. Mayur Narendra & Co. for petitioner in CP 336/99. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 10, 2008. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2008. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. None appears for the Respondent though served. In all five petitions for winding up of the Respondent company under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 have been admitted against the Respondent company and are now proceeded for final hearing. 2. In so far as the first Petition is concerned, the Petitioners therein assert that they are entitled for the sum of Rs.26,25,000/- from the Respondent company in relation to the transaction of intercorporate deposit. In fact, in that case, the record indicates that Consent Terms were filed before this Court. As per the said Consent Terms, the 3 Respondent was obliged to pay amount from time to time to the Petitioners, however, committed default thereof. As a result, as per the provision made in the Consent Terms, the Company Petition stood admitted. The Petitioners assert that the Respondent company has not paid any amount even after the admission of the Petition. There is nothing on record to suggest to the contrary. The fact that the Respondent committed default in paying admitted amount specified in the Consent Terms, which is far exceeding the statutory amount of Rs.500/- presupposes that the Respondent is unable to pay its debt. 3. Almost similar situation arises in the third matter, which has been filed on the assertion that financial assistance was given to the Respondent Company. Respondent is liable to pay Rs.1,92,27,797/- which however, remained unpaid. In fact, when the Petitioners approached this Court by way of winding up petition, Consent Terms were filed between the parties. Even in this case, the Respondent committed default in payment of the amount as per the Consent Terms. As a result, Company Petition stood admitted. The amount involved in this case is quite substantial. It is obvious that the 4 Respondent is unable to pay its debt and has failed and neglected to discharge legal obligations so far. 4. In the second matter, the outstanding claim is to the extent of Rs.28,28,758/- arising out of the intercorporate deposit. Even in this matter, the Consent Terms were filed. That means the Respondent admitted its liability to the extent of the amount specified in the Consent Terms. Even that liability has not been discharged by the Respondent. 5. In so far as 4th matter is concerned, the total outstanding amount according to the Petitioner is in the sum of Rs.2,62,24,434/-, which liability arises out of the financial assistance availed by the Respondent company. Similarly in the 5th matter outstanding amount is in the sum of Rs.43,27,415/- arising out of financial assistance availed by the Respondent company. 6. Considering all these aspects, individually or together, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the Respondent has no bonafide defence, rather the Respondent has not come forward to give suitable explanation as to the reasons which prevailed for non-compliance of the Consent Terms, atleast in the 5 three matters, which are on board today. It necessarily follows that the Respondent has failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues to several creditors. Besides, the Respondent company is unable to pay its debt. As a result, I have no hesitation in acceeding to the request made on behalf of all these petitioners that the Respondent be ordered to be wound up and to appoint Official Liquidator to take charge of the affairs of the Respondent Company and exercise all powers under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. 7. Accordingly, all these Petitions are made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). 8. The Official Liquidator, who is already acting as Provisional Liquidator in the first matter shall now act as regular Official Liquidator and discharge all functions and duties in accordance with the law. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)