Allowed

Viacom 18 Media v. Crescendo Motion Picture Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC29 Oct 2010CP/434/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a company petition seeking winding up of Crescendo Motion Picture Private Limited for debt, the High Court of Bombay held that the liability was admitted by the respondent company through letter and by failure to file a reply. The court made the petition absolute and ordered winding up disposal without costs.

What did the court decide?

Company Petition made absolute; winds up the Respondent Company; marks for decision of Official Liquidator; no order as to costs.

Viacom 18 Media Vs Crescendo Motion Picture Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

jmi

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 434 OF 2005.

¶5

Viacom 18 Media Private Limited. ..Petitioners. vs. Crescendo Motion Picture Private Limited. ..Respondent. ....

¶6

Ms. Sujata Melekar, a/w. Ms. Kavita Brid, i/b. Dholakia Law Ass., for Petitioners. None for Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 29TH OCTOBER 2010.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

The Petitioners have filed the present Company Petition

¶10

seeking winding up of the Respondent Company Crescendo Motion Picture Private Limited (the Company). The Company Petition is for hearing and final disposal.

¶11

The Petitioners had entered into an advertisement sales

¶12

contract with the Company in January 2001 for advertising of the products of the Company between January and December 2001 for a total advertising value commitment of Rs.50 lacs. The contract was extended for a further period from March to December 2002, and again thereafter from January to December 2003 for an additional commitment value. The advertising fee was due and payable within 90 days of the date of the bill. Between June 2001 and July 2003 an amount of Rs.11,21,706/- was due and payable. The payment has

¶13

¶14

remained outstanding. The Petitioners have also claimed interest at 18% per annum.

¶15

Apart from the aforesaid contract a co-promotional agreement was entered into between the parties on 5^th March 2001. According to the Petitioners, the aforesaid agreement entitled the Petitioners to a guaranteed minimum royalty fee of Rs.5,50,000/- for each compilation of music. The Company by a letter dated 11^th June 2004 of its Assistant Manager-Finance has acknowledged an outstanding payment of Rs.13,96,612.30. A statutory notice was issued on 25^th June 2004 under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 to which there was no reply.

¶16

The Company Petition was instituted before the Court on 6^th May 2005. Fresh notice was directed to be served on the Company on 7^th February 2007. On 28^th February 2007, the Petition was directed to stand over by a period of one week on the request of the Company. Counsel appearing for the Company was placed on notice that no further adjournment would be granted. However, the Company remained absent on the adjourned date. Having regard to the fact that the Company Petition was served on the Company and no reply was filed and further having regard to the acknowledgment of liability contained in the Company’s communication dated 11^th June 2004 (Exhibits H-1 and H-2) the Company Petition was admitted on 14^th March 2007 and made returnable on 11^th April

¶17

¶18

The Company Petition was advertised as deposed in the Affidavit of Publication dated 27^th July 2007. Since the notice under Rule 28 was returned with the endorsement “left” a chamber order for substituted service was obtained by the Petitioner and necessary advertisements were issued. However, the Company has not appeared before this Court.

¶19

The Company has not filed its reply to the statutory notice nor has it filed its reply to the Company Petition. The Company has admitted its liability by its letter dated 11th June 2004 (Exhibit- H1 and H2). All the contentions/allegations made in the Company Petition have also remained uncontroverted. In view thereof, the Company Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read thus :

¶20

“(a) The Respondent Company be wound up by and under the orders and directions of this Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956;

¶21

(b) The Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay or some other fit and proper person be appointed by this Court as Liquidator of the assets, properties and income as well as the business of the Respondent Company with all powers under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.”.

¶22

The Company Petition is accordingly, disposed of, with

¶23

no order as to costs.

Viacom 18 Media v. Crescendo Motion Picture Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viacom 18 Media v. Crescendo Motion Picture 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

Tarille Corporation Vs Hiralal Printing Works Ltd.

Prayosha Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aakash Tiles Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Jai Tiles Pvt. Ltd.

Jessica Lumkani Vs the Official Liquidator of Dynacraft Machine Company Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqun )

Grey Matter India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs ----------------------------

Fourth Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ----------------------------

Ninth Estate and Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs ----------------------------