-: 1 :- SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 260 OF 2000 COMPANY PETITION NO. 260 OF 2000 COMPANY PETITION NO. 260 OF 2000 Mr.Ram J. Buxani .. Petitioner. V/s. M/s.Bhojwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2000 COMPANY PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2000 COMPANY PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2000 Murij J. Manghnani .. Petitioner. v/s. M/s.Bhojwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 411 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION NO. 411 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION NO. 411 OF 2001 Prakash Vinod & Co. .. Petitioner. vs. M/s.Bhojwani HOtels Pvt.Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION N0. 419 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION N0. 419 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION N0. 419 OF 2001 Prabhudas J. Adnani .. Petitioner. vs. M/s.Bhojwani Hotels Pvt.Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 439 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION NO. 439 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION NO. 439 OF 2001 Kishore P. Adnani .. Petitioner. -: 2 :- vs. M/s. Bhojwani Hotels Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 440 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION NO. 440 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION NO. 440 OF 2001 Kishore P. Adnani .. Petitioner. vs. M/s.Bhojwani HOtels Pvt.Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION N0. 819 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION N0. 819 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION N0. 819 OF 2001 Kalyanji Velji & Co. .. Petitioner. vs. M/s.Bhojwani Hotels Pvt.Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 761 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION NO. 761 OF 2001 COMPANY PETITION NO. 761 OF 2001 Citizen Hotels Pvt.Ltd., .. Petitioner. vs. M/s. Bhojwani Hotels Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent. --- Mr.Ajay Khandhar for the petitioner in company petition nos. 260/2000 and 1012/2000. Mr. P.N.Mehta i/by Desai & Chinoy for respondent in company petition nos. 260/2000 & 1012/2000. Ms. Sapna Pachure i/by T.N.Tripathi for the petitioner in C.P. No. 819/2001. Mr.Prashant More i/by S.r. Mishra for the respondent in C.P.No.761/2002. Mr.Rajeev Matkar for the respondents in all the other -: 3 :- petitions. --- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : . All the above petitions can be disposed of together by this common order as the relief claimed in all these petitions is for winding up of the respondent company. 2. In all these petitions, the respective petitioner prays that the respondent company be ordered to be wound up as it has failed to pay its debts. In all eight petitions are pending against the respondent company for the said relief. 3. In the first petition, being company petition no. 260/2000 the petitioner claims that the outstanding dues payable by the respondent company is to the extent of Rs.1,70,00,000/-; whereas in company petition no. 1012/2000 the outstanding dues are Rs.1,82,00,000/-, in company petition no. 411/2001 the dues are Rs.65,750/-, in company petition no. 419/2001 the dues are Rs. 01,28,500/-, in company petition no. 439/2001 the dues are Rs. 1,28,500/-, in company petition no. 440/2001, -: 4 :- the outstanding dues come to Rs.2,57,000/- in company petition no. 819/2001 the dues are Rs.54,005/- and in company petition no. 761/2002 the outstanding dues are Rs. 5,70,411/- 4. From the figures of outstanding dues payable in the respective petition by the respondent company it is more than clear that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts. Significantly,, in the first petition being company petition no. 260/2000 at the admission stage, consent terms were filed in which the respondent company admitted its liability at least to the extent of Rs.1,70,00,000/-. However, the record indicates that the respondent company did not fulfil its promise under the said consent terms. In the second petition, being company petition no. 1012/2000, the outstanding dues is stated to be as high as Rs.1,82,00,000/-. The court at the time of admission of the petitions, prima facie accepted the claim of the petitioners in that behalf. Needless to say that the court showed indulgence to the respondent company and passed conditional order. It is obvious from the record now available before the court, at the time of conditional order was not made available by the respondent company. As a result, the said company petition came to be admitted. It is not necessary to advert to other claims in the petitions which are also -: 5 :- pending for consideration, the above said two claims being substantial. There is nothing on record that during the pendency of these two petitions, the respondent company has made any attempt to either pay the amount which is outstanding and payable to the respective petitioners. When these matters are called out for hearing, counsel for the respondent company in company petition nos.260/ 2000 and 1012/2000 states that inspite of his efforts, no instructions are forthcoming from the respondent company. This reinforces the fact that the respondent company is not making any attempt to pay the outstanding dues. Obviously, it is because the respondent company is unable to pay such heavy debts. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent company in company petition no.761/2002 states that as per his instructions the respondent company is likely to settle the matter with the petitioner in the said petition. Once the petition is pending for winding up of the respondent company, the question of allowing the respondent company to arrive at a settlement with only such selective petitioner does not arise. No such settlement can be allowed unless it is found to be bonafide and in the interest of the respondent company, including, it should not be prejudicial to the interests of the other stake holders of the company in the various -: 6 :- petitions before this court. . It has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no record is forthcoming as to how the respondent company would be able to settle the said outstanding dues which are staggering and exceeding Rs.3 crores. 6. Counsel for the petitioners in company petition no.260/2000 invited my attention to the fact that inspite of injunction granted by this court, the respondent company has created third party rights. The third party rights have been created in respect of some of the properties of the respondent company. The official liquidator may examine this position and seek appropriate direction of the court as may be advised. All questions in that behalf are kept open. 7. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in allowing all these petitions and ordering the winding up of the respondent company. Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent company be wound up forthwith. The Official Liquidator shall take over the assets and properties of the respondent company forthwith and proceed in accordance with law. -: 7 :- (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J).