Allowed

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Catrack Entertainment Ltd.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2013CP/189/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought winding up of the respondent company for non-payment of admitted commercial dues. The High Court accepted that the respondent admitted liability and was not solvent. All grounds for winding up were established, leading to the disposal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Ordered to wind up Catrack Entertainment Ltd. and appointed the Official Liquidator of the High Court of Bombay as liquidator with all powers under the Companies Act, 1956.

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs Catrack… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

CP189-06.doc

Sequeira

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

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO. 189 OF 2006

¶6

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited ..Petitioner Vs. Catrack Entertainment Limited. ..Respondent

¶7

Mr.A.S.Daver a/w Mr.Kunal Parekh i/b Thakore Jariwala and Associates, for petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Ashok Toraskar, for respondent.

¶9

CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Thursday 11 July 2013

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

By this petition, the petitioner seeks winding up of the respondent Company : Catrack Entertainment Ltd.

¶12

The petitioner was initially in business of broadcasting programmes on satellite television known as ETC channel-Punjabi. Thereafter a scheme was moved for Amalgamation and Arrangement and Zee Enterprises Limited was entitled to continue the present petition.

¶13

The respondent Company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and authorised capital of the respondent Company is 30,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. The respondent Company is in the business of advertisement. During the course of the business the respondent had booked advertisement of petitioner’s Channel as per various release orders. The petitioner thereafter raised several invoices, details of which

¶14

¶15

CP189-06.doc

¶16

are given in paragraph 7 of the petition. The invoices were duly received and along with the invoices, the petitioner annexed certificate showing proof of telecast. During the correspondence between the parties, the respondent Company by letter dated 12 March 2004 stated that they are making part payment for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and will make balance payment in equal monthly instalments of Rs.1,00,000/-. Inspite of their admission to pay the amount, the respondent Company did not pay the amount as per invoices therefore, the petitioner Company issued a statutory notice under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act 1956 on 22 July 2005. Since no amount was paid, present Company petition was filed.

¶17

The Company petition was accepted and notices were issued to the respondent. The respondent appeared and filed their reply. By order dated 15 February 2007, after considering the reply filed by the respondent, this Court admitted the petition noting that prima facie case was made out for an admission of the petition. At that stage the defence raised by respondent based on Agreement of the year 1999 was negatived and the letter dated 12 March 2004 was considered as an admission. After all the post admission formalities were completed the matter was posted for hearing on 25 June 2013. At that time learned counsel for the respondent sought time to take instructions as to whether the respondent would file a reply affidavit. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has not contacted him for long period of time and states that reply filed at the time of admission be taken into account.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶19

¶20

CP189-06.doc

¶21

counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the orders placed by respondent, the petitioner had carried out advertisements on their Channel and invoices and certificate of proof of telecast was duly sent to the respondent Company. The learned counsel submitted that inspite of receiving the invoices the respondent Company did not pay the amount demanded. He submitted that in fact by letter dated 12 March 2004 the respondent had clearly admitted that they are liable to pay the amount. The learned counsel submitted that the reference to the Agreement of the year 1999 by respondent Company is misconceived as that is an Agreement between the sister concern of the petitioner and the respondent which has nothing to do with the present claim.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Agreement of the year 1999 needs to be considered before fixing the liability on the respondent Company. The learned counsel reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit in reply.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the letter dated 12 March 2004 constitutes a clear admission on the part of the respondent Company that they are liable to pay the petitioner. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner pursuant to the offer of Rs.2,00,000/- by the respondent towards part payment which was made by the respondent, Rs.2,00,000/- were received and due credit for the said amount was given. Thus the defence is based on the Agreement of 1999. This cannot be considered as that Agreement is admittedly between the sister concern of the petitioner and respondent Company. There is no

¶24

¶25

CP189-06.doc

¶26

other defence. After the admission of the petition, the respondent Company has not filed any further reply. It is clear that the legitimate dues of the petitioner are not paid. It is clear that respondent Company is not commercially solvent. All the ingredients for winding up of a Company are made out in this present case.

¶27

Accordingly, the Company petition is allowed in terms of paragraph (a) and (b) which read as under -

¶28

“(a) that the Respondent Company i.e. Catrack Entertainment Limited be ordered to be wound up by an order of this Hon’ble Court;

¶29

(b) that the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay be appointed as liquidator of the Respondent Company, i.e. Catrack Entertainment Limited, with all powers under the Companies Act, 1956 including the power to take possession of all the assets, books of account, stock in trade, cash on hand, moveable properties including furniture and fixtures as well as all immoveable properties.”

¶30

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Catrack Entertainment Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Catrack Entertainment 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

Chemtrade Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Konduskar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U24296PN2006PTC128751

B.I.F.R. Vs M/S.Meltron Semiconductors Ltd.

Shri Radheyshyam B. Poddar Vs the Official Liquidator of Audhnik Yarns Limited

Saikkrupa Photo Offset Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Percept Picture Company (a Division of Percept Limited)

Rana M. Patel Vs Capital Controls India Private Limited Cin No. U33130MH1995PTC094424

Sarojben N. Shah and Ors. Vs the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and Ors.