1 48.cp-974-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi COMPANY PETITION NO. 974 OF 2009. Bell Finvest India Limited. ..Petitioner. vs. On Wheels Logistics Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. R.D. Sohoni, for Petitioner. None for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 7TH JULY 2011. P.C. : In the above Company Petition, the Petitioner seeks winding up of the Respondent Company On Wheels Logistics Private Limited (the Company). The Company Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. According to the Petitioner, in the month of October 2008, the Company through its Directors had approached the Petitioner with a request for an inter-corporate business loan of Rs. 6 lacs for meeting the needs of the Company’s car rental business. According to the Petitioner after several talks and negotiations, the Petitioner agreed to grant the said Company the inter-corporate business loan of Rs. 6 lacs on conditions set out in paragraph 8 of the Petition. However, the Company failed to pay the necessary installments and the post dated cheques issued by the Company were dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. The statutory notice issued to the Company was not responded to by the Company. After the above Petition was filed, the Company obtained a consent order dated 13th 2 48.cp-974-09 April 2010 from this Court wherein they agreed to deposit the amount of Rs. 6 lacs with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court within a period of six weeks and further agreed that the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall transfer the said amount to the Suit Account in Summary Suit No. 2456 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner against the Company. It was further agreed that in the event of the Company failing to deposit the amount of Rs. 6 lacs with the Prothonotary and Senior Master within six weeks from the date of the order, the entire amount claimed by the Petitioner shall forthwith become due and payable to the Petitioner and the Company Petition shall stand admitted and advertised. 3. The Respondent Company failed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 6 lacs as agreed by them and recorded in the order dated 13th April 2010. The above Company Petition therefore stood admitted and the Petition advertised the same as can be seen from the Affidavit of Publication dated 16th July 2010. The Petitioner has also issued notice under Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 as can be seen from the Affidavit of Service dated 10th November 2010. However, none appear for the Company. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner therefore submits that the Company is unable to pay its debts and deserves to be wound up. 4. From the aforesaid facts, I am convinced that the Company is unable to pay its debts and deserves to be wound up. The Company Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]