-: 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. 683 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 683 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 683 OF 2002 M/s. Spark Automech Pvt.LTd., .. Petitioner. V/s. M/s.Roplas (I) Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 401 OF 2004 COMPANY PETITION NO. 401 OF 2004 COMPANY PETITION NO. 401 OF 2004 Ganesh Industries .. Petitioner. v/s. Roplas (I) Ltd. .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 402 OF 2004 COMPANY PETITION NO. 402 OF 2004 COMPANY PETITION NO. 402 OF 2004 M/s. Shamal Enterprises .. Petitioner. vs. M/s. Roplas (I) Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION N0. 403 OF 2004 COMPANY PETITION N0. 403 OF 2004 COMPANY PETITION N0. 403 OF 2004 Sujata Upholsterers .. Petitioner. vs. M/s.Roplas (I) Ltd., .. Respondent. --- WITH WITH WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 449 OF 2004 COMPANY PETITION NO. 449 OF 2004 COMPANY PETITION NO. 449 OF 2004 -: 2 :- M/s. Jewel Polymers Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner. vs. M/s. Roplas (I) Ltd. .. Respondent. --- Mr.Rajesh Shah for the petitioner in company petition nos. 401/2004, 402/2004, 403/2004. Mr. Ashwin Shete i/by Khaitan& Jayakar for the petitioner in Com.Petition No. 449/2004. Mrs. Mohana Nair for the respondent in company petition nos. 683/2002. --- 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. : . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In all five petitions are pending against the respondent, praying for winding up of the respondent company. 2. 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. 3. In the first petition, being company petition no. 683/2002 the petitioner claims that the outstanding dues payable by the respondent company is to the extent of Rs.2,01,726.40/-; whereas in company petition no. -: 3 :- 401/2004 the outstanding dues are Rs.3,90,354/-; in company petition no. 402/2004 the dues are Rs.2,95,888/-; in company petition no. 403/2004 the dues are Rs. 03,66,886/-; and in company petition no. 449/2004 the outstanding dues are Rs. 45,47,076/- 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. The respondent company inspite of the statutory notice in all these petitions has failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues. The claim in the respective petition is supported by the document appended to the petitions. No reply has been filed to counter the petitioner’s claim made in each of the petitions. It necessarily follows that the legal presumption against the respondent company that it is unable to pay its debts is unrebutted. 5. In the circumstances, the only option is to order winding up of the respondent company. Incidently, counsel for the respondent company in all fairness points out that even at the stage of the admission of the company petition, it was made clear that the respondent company is not in a position to pay its debts. -: 4 :- 6. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in allowing all these petitions and ordering winding up of the respondent company forthwith. The Official Liquidator shall take over the assets and properties of the respondent company forthwith and proceed in accordance with law. Provisional liquidator shall proceed to take steps as may be required in relation to the assets and properties of the respondent company and proceed in accordance with law. . Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J).