Allowed

Mr Babulal Pukhraj Sanghvi, Nandishwar Steel v. M/S.Intech Surface Coating Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.U51505PN1991PTC059630

Bombay HC18 Sept 2014CP/139/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought winding up of the respondent company for inability to pay debts due to non-payment of Rs. 6,29,297 owed for supplied goods. The company admitted the liability but failed to pay. The court found the company commercially insolvent and allowed the winding up petition, appointing an official liquidator.

What did the court decide?

Company ordered to be wound up; Official Liquidator appointed to take charge of company property.

Mr Babulal Pukhraj Sanghvi, Nandishwar Steel Vs… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

cp 139 of 2013 (943).sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.139 OF 2013

¶3

Babulal Pukhraj Sanghvi, Prop. Nandishwar Steel … Petitioner

¶4

versus M/s. Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Prashant H. Chande i/by Mr. H.V.Chande, for Petitioner. None for Respondent.

¶6

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE: 18^th SEPTEMBER, 2014

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks winding up of the Respondent Company – Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Ltd., under Sections 433 (e), (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

¶9

The Petitioner has between February 2010 and June 2011 sold and supplied goods to the Company as per the order and instruction of the Company. The Petitioner served a statutory notice through their Advocate dated 08-12-2012 on the Company calling upon the Company to pay an amount of Rs.6,29,297/- along with interest thereon @ 21% p.a., from the due date of the invoices till payment within three weeks from the receipt of the said notice. As can be seen from the letter dated 26-12-2012, written by the

¶10

Company to the Petitioner, the Company has admitted that an amount of

¶11

1/3

¶12

ssp

¶13

cp 139 of 2013 (943).sxw

¶14

Rs.6,29,297/- is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner. However, the Company has sought some time to make the said payment on the ground that they are now picking up in their business and are expecting certain payments shortly. Since the Company has failed and neglected to pay any amounts thereafter, the Petitioner filed the present Petition seeking winding up of the Company on the ground that the Company is unable to pay its debts and is commercially insolvent.

¶15

The above Company Petition was admitted on 20-08-2014 and directed to be advertised. Paragraph No.4 of the order dated 20-08-2014 is relevant and reproduced hereunder :

¶16

“ 4. From the aforestated facts, I am satisfied that an amount of Rs.6,29,297/- is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner. Infact, the Company has admitted its liability to pay the said amount to the Petitioner by its letter dated 2612-2012. Though, a copy of the Petition has been served on the Company, the Company has not come forward to oppose the same. In view thereof, it is established that the Company is unable to pay its debts and is commercially insolvent and deserves to be wound up.

¶17

Pursuant to the order dated 20-08-2014, the Company Petition

¶18

has been advertised in two local newspapers and an Affidavit proving newspapers publications dated 12-09-2014 is on record. A copy of the Maharashtra Government Gazette in which the admission of the Petition has been advertised is also produced before this Court. Notice under Rule 28 of

¶19

2/3

¶20

ssp

¶21

cp 139 of 2013 (943).sxw

¶22

the Companies Court (Rules) 1959, is also served on the Company. However, even at this stage, none appear for the Company to oppose the Company Petition. In view thereof, I am satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debts, is commercially insolvent and deserves to be wound up. The Company Petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which are reproduced hereunder :

¶23

(a) that the Company Viz. M/s. Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Ltd., be ordered and directed to be wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956;

¶24

(b) that the Official Liquidator be appointed as the Liquidator of the Company with all powers under Section 457 of the Companies Act, including the powers and authority to take charge and possession of the property and assets of the Company in accordance with law;

¶25

The Official Liquidator shall forthwith act on a copy of this order without waiting for any Notification.

¶26

The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶28

3/3

¶29

ssp

Mr Babulal Pukhraj Sanghvi, Nandishwar Steel v. M/S.Intech Surface Coating Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.U51505PN1991PTC059630

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Babulal Pukhraj Sanghvi, Nandishwar Steel v. M/S.Intech Surface Coating Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.U51505PN1991PTC059630

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

Supama Realtors LLP and 4 Ors. Vs Mulchand Kaluchand Ranka and 7 Ors.

Darshan Dairy Vs B.J.N. Hotesl Ltd. Cin U55101KA999PLC025622

M/S.Ashique Enterprises and Anr. Vs Fiorano Motors LLP and M/S. Divis Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Applicant) 7 Ors.

Krishnamurthy and Co., a Prop Firm of Atthornesy , Ms.Naina Krishnamurthy Vs Mchek India Payment Systems Pvt.Ltd.

Krishnamurthy and Co., a Prop Firm of Atthornesy , Ms.Naina Krishnamurthy Vs Mchek India Payment Systems Pvt.Ltd.

Focus Lighting and Fixtures Pvt.Ltd. Vs Brandhouse Oversee Ltd, Cin NO.U52100MH2009PLC199418