TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 17-11-2015 - MR. ALOK SHARMA, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Mr. Ashish Sharma, Mr. Bhrigu Sharma For The Respondent : Mr. V.L. Mathur BY THE COURT: This petition under Section 439(1)(b) read with 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter `the Act of 1956') has been filed by the petitioner Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (hereinafter `the Bank') against the respondent Hari Ugam Marketing Distribution Company Private Limited (hereinafter `the respondent Company') having its registered office at Hari Ugam, E-61, Chitranjan Marg C-Scheme, Jaipur. The case of the petitioner Bank is that the respondent company is engaged in the business of distributors, stockist, retailers, clearing and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the Registrar of Companies or otherwise intimated to the petitioner Bank. The debt amount remains unpaid evidencing that the respondent company in law is deemed to be commercially insolvent and hence liable to be wound up in public interest. The respondent company filed reply to the petition. Preliminary objections have been laid. It has been submitted that on 3-11-2011 an original Application No.163/2011 was filed by the petitioner Bank against the respondent Company under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter `the Act of 1993') before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter `the Tribunal') for recovery of an amount of ₹ 26,66,945.79 along with pendent-lite a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner Bank had availed its remedies to recover the due amount by resort to application under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, whereupon a certificate of recovery was issued by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner Bank. It has been submitted that while proceedings under the Act of 1993 were taken on 3-11-2011 for recovery of ₹ 26,66,945.79 along with interest thereon the company petition was filed thereafter without disclosure in regard thereto, tantamounting to suppression of fact making the company petition liable to be dismissed. Heard. Considered. The only submission of counsel for the respondent Company in defence to the winding up petition is contrary to the judgments in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether a crystallized debt as claimed by the petitioner obtains and whether the respondent has neglected to pay it despite statutory notice or whether there is a bonafide dispute on substantial grounds with regard to the debt claimed by the petitioner. In the context of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the facts of the instant case detailed hereinabove, it is prima facie evident that the respondent company has neglected to pay its due debt to the petitioner Bank despite its obligation and notice, and therefore per se is deemed to be insolvent. The petition is accordingly, admitted. The citation of the winding up petition being admitted be published by the petitioner in two news papers i.e. The Times of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
