TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which a petition/application is filed. It is expected from the petitioner to remain careful in future. 3. Having gone through the contents of the petition I find that it is a petition for winding-up of the respondent company - Shree Shyam Radio Taxi Services Private Limited, Jaipur. The ground on which the winding-up of the respondent Company is prayed for is its inability to pay the debts. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the promoter Director of the respondent Company. It is admitted by him in para No. 6 of the petition. He has a shareholding of 3333 equity shares of the face value of Rs. 33330 being approximately 1/3rd of the total shareholding of the respondent- company. It is stated that at the time of incorporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund the amount of unsecured loan taken by the respondent-company. Verbal assurances is stated to have been given by the other Directors of the respondent-company to the petitioner for the return of the same. It is admitted in para No. 10 of the petition that Rupees three lakh were refunded by the other Directors of the respondent-company to the petitioner on 22nd of July, 2003. They also alleged to have been given assurance to the petitioner that the balance amount would be returned as soon as possible. However, it is stated that no amount has been paid after that and the amount of Rs. 4,66,670 is due and payable to the petitioner by the respondent-company. 8. The petitioner, in para Nos. 11 and 12 of the petition, has given out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the losses suffered by the respondent-company, the balance amount of Rupees three lakh on resignation by the petitioner, has been paid to him. The petitioner has given personal bank guarantee of the Company and he has been relieved therefrom by the respondent-company. 12. From the contents of the para Nos. 3 to 9 of the reply to the aforesaid notice I am satisfied that there is a bona fide dispute raised by the respondent-company against the demand of the dues of the alleged balance amount of the loan advanced to the respondent-company by the petitioner. 13. As there is a bona fide dispute raised by the respondent-company, this petition filed for winding-up of the respondent-company, is not a bona fide act on the part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
