Allowed

Karvy Consultants Ltd. v. East West Travel and Trade Links Ltd.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2005CP/339/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a winding-up petition filed by a Registrar against a company for failure to pay outstanding bills and interest. With no reply filed and the presumption against the company's ability to pay debts unrebutted, the Court made the petition absolute.

What did the court decide?

The petition for winding up of the Respondent Company is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

Karvy Consultants Ltd. Vs East West Travel and Trade… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 339 OF 1997

¶5

 Karvy Consultants Limi ted.... ....Petitioner.

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 East West Travel & Trade Links Ltd... Respondents.

¶8

 Mr. Ajaykumar i/by I.J.Nankani for the Petitioner.
 Mr.K.V.Gautam, Dy.Official Liquidator, present.

¶9

CORAM: A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 DATE : 2ND AUGUST, 2005

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

 Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. None appears for
 the Respondents, though served. No reply has been filed
 opposing this petition.

¶13

 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner

¶14

 was appointed as Registrar for the Public Issue to be
 introduced on behalf of the Respondent Company. The
 Petitioner discharged their obligation as Registrar and
 Share Transfer Agent over a period of time from the date
 of their appointment from 29th December, 1994 till 30th
 September, 1996. The Petitioner regularly raised bills
 for the work undertaken by them for and on behalf of the

¶15

 -: 2 :-

¶16

 Respondent Company from time to time aggregating to an
 amount of Rs.1,01,76,789.24 till 30th September, 1996
 which was in conformity with the agreed terms and
 conditions between the parties. Inspite of repeated
 reminders the substantial amount remained unpaid.
 Indeed, the Respondent Company offered the part payment
 by cheques which however were dishonoured.

¶17

 3. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent Company
 was eventually indebted to the Petitioner for a sum of
 Rs.8,16,965.90 along with interest accrued thereon. As
 the said amount was not received, the Petitioner issued
 statutory notice on 26th November, 1996 which was duly
 served on the Respondent Company on 29th November, 1996.
 Inspite of the statutory notice, no reply was received
 by the Petitioner, which compelled the Petitioner to
 approach this Court by filing present petition under
 Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act praying for
 winding up of the Respondent Company. This petition is
 filed on 31st March, 1997. Petition was, however,
 admitted on 26th March, 1998 and was duly advertised and
 published.

¶18

 4. As mentioned earlier, no reply has been filed
 opposing this Petition. Inspite of admission of this
 petition, the Respondent Company has not made any
 attempt to pay the outstanding amount to the Petitioner

¶19

 -: 3 :-

¶20

 which is an acknowledged and admitted liability. In
 that sense the legal presumption against the Respondent
 Company arises that it is unable to pay its debts has
 remained unrebutted. In that situation, this Court has
 no option but to allow the prayer of the Petitioner for
 winding up of the Respondent Company.

¶21

5. Accordingly, this petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶22

 Sd/-

¶23

(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Karvy Consultants Ltd. v. East West Travel and Trade Links Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karvy Consultants Ltd. v. East West Travel and Trade Links 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

Mukesh H. Mehta and Ors. Vs Harendra H. Mehta and Anr. and Amish Harendra Mehta

Vishwanath S. Kamath Vs M/S. Absolute Prints (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Sanjee M.Gupta Prop.of M/S Global Advertisers Vs the Greater Bombay Co-Op Bank Ltd.

M/S.I.C.D.S.Ltd. Vs M/S.R.S.L.Industries Ltd.

M/S.Supreme Chain and Jewellery Pvt.Ltd. Vs Supreme Chain and Jewelleryp.Ltd.

Kaushalkumar G Agarwal Vs Smt Yallama G Pawar and Piyush S/O Kaushalkumr Agarwal and Anr.