Allowed

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

Bombay HC4 Aug 2005CP/416/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a winding up petition where the petitioners sought winding up under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act. The respondent company did not appear or file a reply despite service of notice and publication. The court held that the respondent's liability remained uncontroverted and unrebutted, and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition for winding up was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

Creative Eye Ltd. Vs K.M.Adkar Products Ltd. — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

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

¶2

COMPANY PETITION NO.416 OF 2000

¶3

In the matter of Winding up of K.M. Adkar Products Ltd.

¶4

Creative Eye Ltd.........Respondent

¶5

Ms. Anita Castelino i/b. Pandya Gandhi & Co., for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents.

¶6

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

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard Counsel for the petitioners. None appears for

¶9

the Respondents, though served. No reply is filed opposing

¶10

this petition.

¶11

2.	Petitioners	’ case is that under Agreem	ent dated 22nd
January,	1999	entered into betw	een the petitioners	and	the
respondent	company,	the petitio	ners agreed to a	dvertise	the
products	of th	e company.	The petitioners di	scharged	their
obligation	under	the said agreem	ent. The petiti	oners	raised
bill	for the	services rendered	by the petitioners	t	o the
respondent	company.	By letter	dated 2nd July,	199	9 the
respondent	company	has acknow	ledged its liability	and	has
expressed	regret	for the delay	ed payment.It is	mentioned	in
this	communication	that due to	business problems	faced	by the
company	during last	3 months the	payment has been	delayed.	In
other	words the	liability to pay	the amount for	the	services
rendered	by the	petitioners is	acknowledged by	the	respondent
company,	which	is stated to be	around Rs.51,95,000/-	a	s on
28th	July, 199	9. Eventually	the petitioners	issued	statutory
notice	on 20th	August, 1999	calling upon	the	respondent
company	to pay	the outstan	ding amount of	R	s.59,95,000/-
forthwith.	Neither	any payment	was received nor	any	reply
sent	by the	respondent	company this	statutory	notice.

¶12

Eventually	the	pre	sent petition h	as	been	filed	in this	Court
under	Sections	433	and 434	of	the	Companies	Act on	21st
January,	2000.		Before admiss	ion	of	the	petition	the
respondent	com	pany	was duly ser	ved.		Inspite	of service	none
appeared	for	the	respondent nor	any	re	ply was	filed.	This
Court	was	pleased	to admit	th	e pr	esent	petition on	12th
January,	2001.		After admissi	on,	the	petition	has been	duly
advertised	and		published. In	spite	of	service	of notice	and
publication	the	respond	ent company	has	no	t chos	en to appear	in

¶13

the present proceedings nor any reply has been filed to

¶14

controvert the assertions made in the present petition.

¶15

On going through the pleadings and the documents on

¶16

record	as	the	respondent	company	has not	filed	any	reply	the
assertions	in		the	petition	have	rema	ined	uncontro	verted.
Besides,	the		respondent	comp	any having	failed	to	send	any
reply	to	the	statutory	notice	or the	respon	dent	make	any
payment	as		was de	manded	the legal	presumptio	n	against	the
respondent	c	ompany	has	remained	unrebutted.	If	it	is so	this

¶17

Court has no option but to allow the petition in terms of

¶18

prayer clauses (a) and (b). Ordered accordingly.

¶19

(A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Creative Eye Ltd. v. K.M.Adkar Products 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 -

Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs Colour Cartons Ltd.

Smt. Heena B. Sampat Vs Colour Cartons Ltd.

Vinod Dalmiya Vs Colour Cartons Ltd.