Allowed

Paresh M. Jogi v. Janus Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2005CP/781/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court adjudicated a company petition filed for winding up of the respondent company due to inability to pay debts. The court found the respondent had acknowledged the liability and failed to pay despite assurances, declaring the petitioner's claim just and the company unable to pay its debts.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Petition.

Paresh M. Jogi Vs Janus Remedies Pvt. Ltd. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 COMPANY PETITION NO.781 OF 1997

¶4

 Shri Paresh M.Jogi ...Petitioner

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 Messrs Janus Remedies Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondents

¶7

 Ms.D.P.Bosamia for Petitioner.

¶8

 None for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 AUGUST 9, 2005.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. Perused

¶13

 the pleadings. None appears for the Respondents
 though served.

¶14

 2. According to the Petitioner, the

¶15

 Petitioner sold, delivered and supplied goods to
 Respondent Company from time to time between

¶16

 November 1995 to March 1996 as per their
 requisition. The total goods supplied was to the

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 tune of over Rs.3,55,485/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
 Fifty-five Four Hundred Eighty-five). The goods
 supplied were duly accepted by the Respondent
 Company without any demur. At no point of time,
 any objection was raised regarding short supply of
 goods or quality of goods.

¶19

 3. As the outstanding payment was not

¶20

 received, Petitioner gave statutory notice on 4th
 August 1997, calling upon the Company to pay
 Rs.2,94,142.15 (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety-four
 Thousand One Hundred Forty-two & Paise Fifteen
 Only) together with interest at the rate of 24% per
 annum. As the amount was not received, Petitioner
 was driven to file the present Petition under
 Section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act on 11th
 September 1997.

¶21

 4. Respondent Company had filed reply to
 oppose admission of the Petition, sworn by

¶22

 Mr.Rashmi K.Bhansali, Director of the Company dated
 15th December 1997. On fair reading of the said

¶23

 reply, it is obvious that the liability to pay
 amount under four bills in the sum of

¶24

 : 3 :

¶25

 Rs.2,94,142.50 (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety-four
 Thousand One Hundred Forty-two & Paise Fifty Only)
 is acknowledged by Respondent Company. The
 Respondent Company, in fact assured by this
 affidavit that it was releasing the payment to the
 Petitioner very shortly. Conditional order was
 passed by this Court requiring the Respondent
 Company to comply with the same. The conditional
 order was, however, not complied by the Respondent,
 which resulted in admission of the present
 Petition.

¶26

 5. Although the Respondent Company has

¶27

 assured to make the outstanding payment, as

¶28

 mentioned in the reply dated 15th December 1997, no
 amount has been paid by the Respondent Company so
 far. In this backdrop, present Petition is pursued
 by the Petitioner before this Court.

¶29

 6. After having perused the documents on

¶30

 record, I have no hesitation in taking the view
 that the claim of the Petitioner is substantiated
 from the record. As mentioned earlier, the
 Respondent Company has acknowledged its liability

¶31

 : 4 :

¶32

 to pay amount under the four bills. In fact, the
 Respondent Company assured to pay the said amount
 to the Petitioner very shortly, as stated in the
 affidavit filed in December 1997 before this Court.
 However, no payment has been made to the Petitioner
 since then. In my opinion, the claim of the
 Petitioner is just, and as mentioned earlier, has
 been acknowledged by the Respondent Company.
 Inspite of assurance, the Respondent Company has
 not offered the amount even during the pendency of
 this petition for such a long period.

¶33

 7. In that view of the matter, I have no
 hesitation in concluding that the Respondent
 Company is unable to pay its debt. On this
 finding, the Petition ought to succeed in terms of
 prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Petition.
 Ordered accordingly.

¶34

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Paresh M. Jogi v. Janus Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh M. Jogi v. Janus Remedies Pvt. 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

Maushaami Amarnath Batabyal Vs the State of Maharashtra (Thr.Anri.Corr.Bure.Mum.)

Mohalal Ghanshamdas Kukreja Vs Bakiralai Mulla Fazalali Bhanpurwala

M/S Kastur B.Industries Pvt.Ltd Vs M/S Sanjay Development Crrporation and Ors.

Hindustan Thompson Associates Ltd. Vs Skyline Nepc Ltd.

Societe Services Aeronautiques Vs Skyline Nepc Ltd.

Arpan Leasing Co.Ltd. Vs Ntm Steel and Alloys Ltd.