9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter recording the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner making it returnable on 05.07.2011. On the returnable date this Court (Coram:K.M.Thaker, J.) recorded the submissions of the advocate for the petitioner that the cover containing the process and returned without any remarks by the postal authority. At the request of the advocate for the petitioner this Court granted time for filing appropriate proceedings of substituted service and adjourned the matter to 12.07.2011. The matter next was taken up for further hearing on 27.07.2011, wherein this Court passed a further order recording that the service of process to the respondent Company was returned but the Director of the respondent Company has accepted the service. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 14.09.2011 is filed by the petitioner. 3. It is no doubt that winding up is a last resort and such course would not normally be resorted to when there is a scope for making the Company live and act. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the liability to make the payment to the petitioner by the respondent Company as claimed in the statutory notice dated 08.10.2010 remains outstanding. The service of notice effected to the respondent Company stood returned but the Director of the respondent Company accepted the Notice. The respondent Company failed to enter appearance. The respondent Company therefore failed to controvert the claim of the petitioner. Prima facie there is ample evidence on record to hold that the respondent Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of the products. The petitioner has attached the copies of the delivery challans evidencing delivery of materials with the invoices for the relevant time. Even after repeated requests the Company failed to make the payment to the petitioner after which the petitioner issued a statutory notice through its lawyers on 08.10.2010 calling upon the Company to pay the dues. The statutory notice was acknowledged by the Company but no response was received. Having not received any reply, the petitioner addressed a registered AD letter on 02.12.2010 with the attached copy of the statutory notice dated 08.10.2010 again to the Company and a copy to the Director of the Company. On the failure of the Company to pay the dues the petitioner sought windi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atutory dues payable by the Company to the petitioner. 7. As stated earlier pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 27.07.2011, the petitioner has issued public advertisement in two newspapers, namely Jai Hind and DNA Ahmedabad edition on 02.09.2011. In response to the said publication, no one has come forward to oppose the winding up petition. 8. In the above view of the matter, the Court is of the view that the respondent Company is required to be wound up as it has failed to discharge its liabilities and the respondent Company has lost its financial substratum and the Company has incurred liabilities to such an extent that they cannot be fulfilled. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
