TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osal. None appeared for the respondent today again. Thus in view of uncontroverted position and the clear admissions on the part of the respondent-company, insofar as the liability in question is concerned, there is no doubt that the petitioner has made out a case as contemplated under the provisions mentioned. - COMPANY PETITION NO. 343 OF 2001 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2005 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2007 - ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. M.P.S. Rao and Harish Pandya for the Petitioners. Debashis Mitra for the Official Liquidator. JUDGMENT 1. The present petition is filed on the basis that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts and, therefore, it is just and equitable to wind-up the company. The company is indeb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so drawn for the period 14-11-1998 to 18-3-1999. The said MOU was signed by Mr. V.K. Agarwal, the Managing Director and the Authorised Signatory on behalf of the company and by Mr. J.K. Agarwal on behalf of the petitioner. 4. By a letter, in response to the petitioner s letter dated 28-1-1999, the company recorded to make payment of a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,00,000 by February 1999 and Rs. 1,00,00,000 in the month of March 1999, and the balance before April 1999. The company also recorded that in the event of any business materialising they would adjust half of the amount under such business deal towards the outstanding dues of the petitioner. The company requested the petitioner to extend its co-operation for clearing its ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge on the companies assets as also to create a mortgage of its immovable assets in favour of the petitioner on the basis that the company was liable to, and indebted to the petitioner of its dues. 7. On 27-7-2000, the cheques issued by the company for aggregate sum were all dishonoured when presented for payment. The cheques were duly dishonoured, with a remark insufficient funds . The petitioner s Advocates initiated steps against the company and its directors for the dishonour of the aforesaid cheques issued by the company. The petitioner s Advocates issued notice under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and the Indian Penal Code to prosecute the Company and its directors for prosecution for the dishonour of the ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the rate of 1.5 per cent per month compounded monthly as on 22-6-2000. On 30-11-2000, a sum of Rs. 5,09,15,672 comprising of the principal sum of Rs. 3,23,92,000 along with interest thereon at the rate of 1.5 per cent per month compounded monthly of Rs. 1,85,23,672 is due and payable by the company to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 1.5 per cent per month compounded monthly on the principal sum of Rs. 3,23,92,000 from 1-12-2000 till payment of realisation thereof. The company also failed and neglected to reply the statutory notice dated 22-8-2000, as addressed by the petitioner s advocates to the company. The company is, therefore, deemed to unable to pay its debts and to be wound-up by this Court. 10. As noted abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance during April, 1999. ( c )Exhibit D is supplement agreement dated 6-5-1999 of which clause 5 is as under. 12. With regard to the total sum of Rs. 4,08,92,000 (Rupees four crores eight lakhs ninety two thousand only) as set out under Serial No. 2 hereinabove VKIL has given post-dated cheques details of which are given in the Annexure of this Agreement : Payment Schedule April-June 99 2,04,46,000 July-September 1,02,23,000 October-December 99 1,02,23,000 4,08,92,000 ( d )Exhibit F is letter dated 22-6-2000 wherein it is stated We refer to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 22-9-1998 and the Supplemental Agreement dated 6-5-2000. Out of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised is within limitation. 17. Taking all this into account including the so-called defences raised this Court on 11-6-2004 after hearing both the parties has admitted the petition. The petitioners have complied with all the necessary formalities as required under the law. The necessary affidavits are part of record. 18. None appeared for the respondent-company though the matter has been in the list of final hearing board since 20-7-2007. It was adjourned from time to time for the response. On 24-8-2007 as last chance was given in the matter and in fact it was kept for disposal. None appeared for the respondent today again. 19. In view of uncontroverted position and the clear admissions on the part of the respondent-company, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
