Allowed

Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. Colour Cartons Ltd.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2005CP/125/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed a company petition filed under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner claimed non-payment of dues despite a statutory notice. The respondent admitted liability in an affidavit opposing a related application but cited financial inability. The court found the petitioner's averments uncontroverted and the legal presumption unrebutted, allowing

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed as per prayer clauses (a) and (b).

Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs Colour Cartons Ltd. — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

COMPANY PETITION NO.125 of 1999

¶3

In the matter of Colour Cartons Limited

¶4

Balkrishna Industries Ltd......Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Shiralkar i/b. Shiralkar & Co., for the petitioner None for the Respondents

¶6

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 4th August, 2005

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. None

¶9

appears for the Respondents though served. No reply has been

¶10

filed opposing this Petition.

¶11

According to the petitioners they have supplied goods

¶12

to	the respondent	company as per its requisiti	ons.	The	goods
are	duly deliv	ered and received by the	Respondent		company.
The	respondent	company has also acknowledged	its	liabilit	y to
pay	a sum	of Rs.16,21,815/- which was the	balance	to	the
credit	of the	petitioners as on 15th October,	1998	.	This
acknowledg	ement is	reflected in the	communica	tion	dated
November	10, 1	998 sent by the respondent comp	any	under	the
signature	of V.	P. Kulkarni, Accountant.	Inspite	of	repeated
reminders,	the	respondent company failed	to	pay	the
outstanding	amount.	Eventually the petitioner	s ga	ve	statutory
notice	on 4th	December, 1998. Inspite of	statutory	notic	e no
payment	was offered	by the respondent company	which	forced	the
petitioners	to	file the present petition unde	r Secti	ons	433
and	434 of	the Companies Act on 5th February	, 19	99.	This
petition	was eve	ntually admitted on 18th	Octo	ber,	1999.
Admission	of the	petition has been duly	adv	ertised	and
published.	Inspite	of notice as mentioned	earlier	no	reply
has	been filed	on behalf of the Respondents.	In	that	sense

¶13

the	averments ma	de	in the	petition	h	ave	remained
uncontroverte	d. In	any	case the liab	ility to	pay	the	amount
in q	uestion is	acknow	ledged by the	respondent	comp	any.	The
respondent	company	has	also expressed	inability	to	pay	the
amount	due to fina	ncial	problem.	Besides,	during	the	pendency
of this	petition the	R	espondent compan	y in	the	reply	affidavit
opposing	another Co	mpany	Application	No.295	of	1999	has
admitted	its liabili	ty	to pay the	outstanding	dues	to	the
extent	of Rs.4.5	crores.	In that	background	this	Court	by
order	dated 24	th	June, 1999	directed	app	ointment	of
provisional	Liquidator.		The Court	is i	nformed	that	the

¶14

Provisional Liquidator has already disposed of the assets and

¶15

properties of the Respondent Company.

¶16

.		Be that as	it may, as th	e assertions	made in	the
petition		have	remained	uncontro	verted	coupled	with	the	fact
that	the	outstanding	pay	ment has	not	been	offered	to	the
petitioners		inspite	of	statutory	noti	ce,	legal		presumption
arising		against	the r	espondent		company	has		remained
unrebutted.		Viewed	in	this	petrspec	tive, this	Court	has	no

¶17

option but to allow the petition in terms of prayer clauses

¶18

(a) and (b). Ordered accordingly.

¶19

Official Liquidator to proceed in accordance with law

¶20

in case these are assets and properties available for

¶21

disposal.

¶22

(A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. Colour Cartons Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. Colour Cartons Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Laxmi Muragavel Harijan Vs

Dattatraya Mahadeo Aney Vs Dilwara Chs Ltd. and Ors. and State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs -

Creative Eye Ltd. Vs K.M.Adkar Products Ltd.

Smt. Heena B. Sampat Vs Colour Cartons Ltd.

Vinod Dalmiya Vs Colour Cartons Ltd.