1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.340 OF 2005 Malaysian International Trading Corporation Sdn Bhd. And Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Megavisa Marketing and Solutions Ltd. .. Respondents Ms.Alpana Ghone i/b Res Legal for the petitioners Ms.Vijay Nene i/b M/s.Malvi Ranchoddas and Co. for the respondents CORAM : S.J.Vazifdar, J. DATE : July 27, 2010 P.C. : 1. This is a petition for winding up the respondent company inter alia on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. 2. According to the petitioners the respondents are indebted to them in the sum of over Rs.50 crores together with interest thereon. 3. In the order dated 27.1.06 admitting the petition, I recorded the statement of the learned counsel that the order in this Company Petition would be governed by the order passed on the same day in Company Petition No.339 2 of 2005. 4. It is necessary to mention the further proceedings adopted by the respondent in Company Petition no.339 of 2005. The respondent in Company Petition No.339 of 2005 filed an Appeal No.116 of 2006 against the order dated 27.1.06. By an order dated 29.3.06, the Division Bench admitted the appeal. By an order dated 29.3.06 in Notice of Motion No.631 of 2006 in Appeal No.116 of 2006, the Division Bench granted a stay of the order subject to the respondent depositing a sum of Rs.4 crores in two installments and filing certain undertakings. 5. The respondents filed a petition for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. By an order dated 12.5.06 the Supreme Court directed the respondent to file financial statements and stayed the order of the Division Bench to the extent it directed the Company to deposit the said amount. By a further order dated 6.11.06, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP by directing the respondent to deposit certain title deeds in this court and requested the Division Bench to hear the matter expeditiously and continued the order dated 12.5.06 pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal by the Division Bench. I am informed that the respondents withdrew the Appeal No.116 of 2006. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not defended this Company Petition. I see no reason to take a different view 3 from the one I took in my order and judgment dated 27.1.06 in Company Petition No.339 of 2005. 7. In the circumstances, there is no defence whatsoever to the Company Petition. 8. The Company Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). The petitioners shall be entitled to costs fixed at Rs.10,000/- which may be recovered in the winding up proceedings.