IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA COMP. APP. No.3 of 2010 1. JAISWAL ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD., a private limited company having its registered office at Museum Road, Patna, through its Director Bishnu Chand Chowdhary. 2. Bishnu Chand Chowdhary, Director, Jaiswal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Museum Road, Patna. ... Appellants. Versus 1. FACOR STEELS LTD, a Limited company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at 46A & B, MIDC Industrial Estate, Nagpur 440028, Maharashtra. 2. Sri Bajrang Sales Pvt. Ltd., Limited company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at 20, New Cotton Market, Nagpur 440018. 3. The Official Liquidators, Maurya Lok, Patna. ..... Respondents. ----------- 04- 29.3.2010 Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh for the appellants, and Mr. Gautam Kejriwal for respondent no.3. The appellants in this appeal under section 483 of the Company Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 31.7.2009, passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No.17 of 2004 (Facor Steels Ltd. and another Vs. Jaiswal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. and another), whereby he has allowed the company petition preferred by respondent nos.1 and 2 under section 433(e) of the Act, and has directed for liquidation of the appellant-company. 2 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The said Company Petition No.17 of 2004, had been filed by the creditors of the Company for winding up of the appellant company. The learned Single Judge has found that the company is unable to pay its debts and, therefore, has ordered for winding up of the company. He has further directed the official liquidator to take charge of the assets, books of accounts and records of the company. In view of the discussion in the order of the learned Single Judge, we entirely agree with the same. 3. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 148 days for which we do not find any satisfactory explanation. The appeal is hit by delay. We, therefore, do not wish to interfere in the matter. 4. The appeal is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K.Pathak/