: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.751 OF 2007 Tulsi P. Jashnani, . Karta of Tulsi P. Jashnani HUF ...Petitioner V/s. Satco Securities & Financial Services L. ...Respondent Mr.J.P. Sen with Ms.Neeta Solanki i/b M/s.Kiran Jain & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.Simil Purohit with Mr.Gaurav Joshi i/b M/s.Purohit & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. : 1. This is a Petition for winding up of the company inter-alia on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. According to the Petitioner, a sum of Rs.3,91,087/- is due and payable to him towards certain security transactions and on the basis of the contract notes issued by the company evidencing the same. 2. The facts of this case are similar to the facts in Company Petition No.750 of 2007. The defence raised by the company in this Petition is almost identical to the defence in Company Petition No.750 of 2007. In Company Petition No.750 of 2007, A.M. : 2 : Khanwilkar, J. by an order and judgment dated 27.3.2008, directed the company to deposit the amounts claimed therein within three weeks, failing which the Company Petition was to stand admitted. The learned Judge further ordered that in the event of the company depositing the amount, the Petitioner would be free to withdraw the same in which case, the petition would stand disposed of without further reference to the Court. 3. Mr.Joshi, stated that the appeal against the said order has been admitted. He submitted therefore that I am not bound to follow the said order. 4. Even assuming that I am not bound by the same atleast on the ground of propriety, I do not intend taking a different view. The record before me on the basis whereof the submissions were made was also before A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 5. As in Company Petition No.750 of 2007, the company contended that the account in respect of the Petitioner ought not to be viewed in isolation as in fact what is involved in the matter is thirty two accounts jointly operated. According to the company the net position of thirty two accounts must be considered. A.M. Khanwilkar, J. did not accept this : 3 : defence and held inter-alia that the company was unable to produce any material to substantiate any such understanding between the parties. 6. Mr.Joshi however invited my attention to the Petitioner’s ledger account. This ledger account was also before A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and was relied upon in support of the contention of the above defence raised by the company. He relied upon certain journal entries transferring the amounts from the accounts of other entities in the group of thirty two and crediting the same in the Petitioner’s account. This ledger account is maintained by the company. It is not admitted by the Petitioner. In fact the Petitioner disputes it. The same was considered by A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and I see no reason to take a different view. There is nothing to indicate that the entries were agreed to by the Petitioner. 7. Mr.Joshi however, contended that after the order was passed in Company Petition No.750 of 2007, a chargesheet was filed by the Economic Offences Wing of the C.I.D. against the Petitioner and his brother Haresh P. Jashnani. The report refers to thirty two accounts. The extracts of the chargesheet filed before the Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrates Court states that thirty two accounts had been clubbed ; : 4 : that the clients of the company for the Kalbadevi branch were but a group and that the accused used to settle the daily business with the company as group only ; that the Petitioner herein was related to the accused ; that the persons in the group of thirty two other than those related to said Haresh Jashnani had not taken any proceedings against the company and that the accused traded in these thirty two accounts and clubbed them. 8. It is true that this chargesheet was not before the Court while considering Company Petition No.750 of 2007. Prima-facie, the views expressed therein do not justify ignoring the order of this Court dated 27.3.2008. Having said that however, I will presume in favour of the company that although the chargesheet by itself does not establish the defence the contents thereof indicate that an order directing the company to make payment to the Petitioner unconditionally is not warranted. 9. In the circumstances, the following order is passed :- i). The Company is directed to deposit in this Court a sum of Rs.3,91,087/- on or before 31.7.2009. : 5 : 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 thereon shall be refunded to the Respondent - Company. v). In case of failure on the part of the Company to deposit the 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.