1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION rpa COMPANY PETITION NO. 777 OF 2009. ALONGWITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 951 OF 2009 Indusind Bank Ltd. .. Petitioners. v/s. M/s. Indage Vintners Ltd. .. Respondents. .... Ms. Vandana Jaisingh for the Applicant in C.A. 951 of 2009 and Petitioner in C.P. 777 of 2009. Mr. Anant Iyengar for the Respondents. .... CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2010. P.C. By this Petition, the Petitioners are seeking winding up of the Respondent Company M/s. Indage Vintners Ltd. (formally known as Champagne Indage Limited). Admittedly, at the request of the Respondent Company, the Petitioners sanctioned to the Respondent Company a short term loan in the sum of Rs. 10 crores on the terms and conditions set out in the letter dated 12th 2 November, 2007. The Respondent Company defaulted in making the payments and the cheque of Rs. 10 crores dated 20th may, 2009 issued by the Respondent Company to the Petitioners was also dishonoured for the reasons “Insufficient Funds”. The Petitioners through their Advocates issued a statutory notice dated 10th June, 2009 under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon the Respondent Company to make payment of the said lending/debt of Rs. 10 crores together with interest @ 18 % per annum from 1st April, 2009 till payment and realization. The Respondent Company by its letter dated 29th June, 2009 replied to the said statutory notice wherein the Respondent Company admitted its liability towards the Petitioners and requested the Petitioners to restructure the loan for a period of one year or grant time to the Respondents till 10th September, 2009 to pay off the outstanding balance due with accrued interest till the date of payment. Despite one year having passed, the Respondent Company failed to pay the outstanding dues and accrued interest thereon on or before 10th September, 2009, as promised. The Petitioners therefore filed the above Company Petition on 28th August, 2009. In the affidavit-in-reply, the Respondent Company has contended that due to global recession, 3 the Respondent Company is facing temporary financial crunch. No submissions are made across the bar on behalf of the Respondent Company. The Petitioners have, therefore, submitted that the Respondent Company is commercially insolvent and unable to pay their debts. The Petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the Respondent Company be wound up and a Provisional Liquidator of the Respondent Company be appointed. 2. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the Respondent is unable to pay its debts. The petition is accordingly admitted. Since Company Petition No. 477 of 2009 filed by the SICOM Limited against the Respondent Company is already admitted by this Court by its order dated 9th September, 2009 and also advertised, issuing of Advertisements in the present petition is dispensed with. 3. Mr. Anant Iyengar, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents on instructions makes a statement that the Respondents shall not dispose of any of their movable assets except in the ordinary course of business and shall not dispose of any of their immovable assets without the permission of this 4 Court. The said statement is accepted. 4. Place the Petition for hearing alongwith Company Petition No. 477 of 2009 on 12th March, 2010, high on borad. 5. In view thereof, Application No. 951 of 2009 also stands disposed of. [ S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]