TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application of the petitioner succeeds. - CA No.58 of 2017, CP No.1031 of 2014 And CA No.119 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2018 - MR. ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J. For The Appearance : Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Reetabrata Mitra, Adv. Mr. Sristi B. Roy, Adv. Ms. Namrata Basu, Adv. And Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv. with Ms. Rajarshree Kajaria, Adv. Mr. Pramit Bag, Adv ORDER The Court : Since both the applications, C.A. No.58 of 2017 and C.A. No.119 of 2017 involve the same set of facts, the same are disposed of by this common order. The applicant in C.A. No.58 of 2017, as a petitioning creditor, filed the said application under Section 434(e) of the Companies Act (in short the Act of 1956 ) for winding up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt of payment of any of the said instalments the stay would stand vacated and the petitioning creditor would be free to advertise the notice of winding-up proceeding in terms of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench further held that in case the company makes payment of the instalments, as directed in the said order, the order of stay would continue and the fate of the disputed sum would be decided at the time of hearing of the appeal. However, the company did not make payment of all the instalments in terms of the said order dated April 17, 2015 and ultimately on September 18, 2015 the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the company. An application filed by the company for review of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 9, 2017 the petitioning creditor s prayer for extension of time to publish the advertisements of the winding-up application was extended but by subsequent orders the company was allowed to pay various amounts by way of instalments and the petitioning creditor was directed not to cause publication of the advertisement of the winding-up application. Today, both the applications are taken up for hearing. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioning creditor, submitted that after taking into consideration all the payments made by the company to the petitioning creditor as per the order of admission dated March 26, 2015, ₹ 2,80,40,089/- remained outstanding as on December 15, 2017 and today the petitioning cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench stood dismissed and the same remain unchallenged before any superior forum, the right of the petitioning creditor to obtain payment of the principal amount of ₹ 5,15,31,045/-, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the notice issued under Section 434 of the Act of 1956 till the date of actual payment has attained finality and this Court does not have any scope to deviate from such finding. Admittedly, the company has failed to pay the entire amount as directed by the said order dated March 26, 2015 and as on today ₹ 2,60,40,089 still remains outstanding from the respondent company to the petitioning creditor. For the above grounds, the application of the petitioner being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
