Allowed

Mr. Anand Mehta Sole Proprietor of M/S. Sttelman Engineering and Forgings v. M/S. Rivolta Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Cin U28910MH1997PTC105768)

Bombay HC12 Dec 2014CP/170/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of a company petition filed by a creditor seeking the winding up of M/s. Rivolta Auto Industries Private Limited. The court found the company unable to pay its debts as an admitted fact due to lack of response from the company.

What did the court decide?

The company was ordered to be wound up under the supervision of the Court, and an Official Liquidator was appointed to liquidate the company's assets.

Mr. Anand Mehta Sole Proprietor of M/S. Sttelman… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

Nitin

923-CP-170-2014

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

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO. 170 OF 2014

¶6

Anand Mehta ... Petitioner Versus M/s. Rivolta Auto Industries Private Limited ... Respondent

¶7

Mr. G.B. Kedia for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE: 12TH DECEMBER, 2014

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

By the above Company Petition, the Petitioner seeks winding up of M/s. Rivolta Auto Industries Private Limited (the Company). The above Company Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

¶11

According to the Petitioner, pursuant to the orders placed by the Company with the Petitioner, the Petitioner sold, supplied and delivered carbon steel and alloy steel (“the said goods”) to the Company. The Company accepted the said goods without raising any dispute in respect of price, quality and quantity thereof.

¶12

According to the Petitioner, under the terms of the supply, the payment was to be made within 30-45 days from the receipt of the said goods failing which the Company was bound and liable to pay interest at

¶13

the rate of 18 per cent per annum for the delayed period. According to the Petitioner, along with the said goods, necessary Central Excise gate

¶14

Nitin 2 923-CP-170-2014

¶15

passes were also sent to the Company and the Company after consumption of the said goods has availed the CENVAT benefit from the Central Excise Department.

¶16

According to the Petitioner, an amount of Rs. 8,01,619/- was due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner as on as on 31^st March, 2013. Since the company failed to pay the said amount, the Petitioner through his Advocate issued a statutory notice dated 22^nd October, 2013 to the Company calling upon the Company to pay an amount of Rs. 8,01,619/- along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum within seven days from the receipt of the said notice. The Company despite having received the said notice, failed to respond to the same or to make any payments as called upon therein. The Petitioner therefore filed the present Petition seeking winding up of the Company on the ground that the Company is unable to pay its debts.

¶17

The above Company Petition was admitted by an order of this Court dated 15^th November, 2014 and the same was directed to be advertised. Paragraph 3 of the said order dated 15^th November, 2014 is relevant and reproduced hereunder :

¶18

“3. From the aforestated facts, it is established that an amount of Rs. 8,01,619/- is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner. The Company has not responded to the statutory notice and has also not made any payments as called upon therein, despite

Nitin

923-CP-170-2014

having received the said notice. As can be seen from the affidavit of service dated 28^th April, 2014, a copy of the Company Petition is served on the Company. However, the Company has not come forward to oppose the petition. In view thereof, what is stated in the Petition has remained uncontroverted. I am therefore prima facie satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debts and the Company Petition deserves to be admitted and advertised. Hence the following order............”

¶23

Pursuant to the order dated 15^th November, 2014, the admission

¶24

of the above Company Petition has been advertised and the Affidavit proving publication dated 24^th November, 2014 is on record. Notice under Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 has been served as can be seen from the service report dated 3^rd December, 2014 filed by the Section Officer, Company Department. Even at this stage, none appear for the Company. No affidavit in reply opposing the Petition has been filed by the Company. All the contentions of the Petitioner in the Petition have therefore remained uncontroverted.

¶25

For the reasons set out in the order dated 15^th November, 2014 and herein, I am satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debts and deserves to be wound up. The above Company Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which are reproduced hereunder :

Nitin

923-CP-170-2014

“(a) that the Company M/s. Rivolta Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. be wound up by and under the Order, directions and supervision of this Hon'ble Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

¶30

(b) that the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay be appointed as a Liquidator of the Company, its entire assets, properties, affairs and records of the Company, lying at the Registered Office of the Company at Gat No. 412/413/414, Village Urawade, Taluka Mulshi, Pune 412 108, Maharashtra, India" .

¶31

The Official Liquidator to forthwith act on an ordinary copy of

¶32

this order, duly authenticated by the learned Associate of this Court without waiting for any further notification from this Court or from any other authority.

¶33

The above Company Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

Mr. Anand Mehta Sole Proprietor of M/S. Sttelman Engineering and Forgings v. M/S. Rivolta Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Cin U28910MH1997PTC105768)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Anand Mehta Sole Proprietor of M/S. Sttelman Engineering and Forgings v. M/S. Rivolta Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Cin U28910MH1997PTC105768)

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

Mr. Neelesh Kanade Vs Edifice Properties Private Limited and 12 Ors.

SBI Global Factors Ltd. Vs M/S. Perfect Engineering Products Ltd.

M/S. Julie International Vs Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited

Harshad M. Doshi, Proprietor of H R Enterprises Vs Rivolta Auto Industries Private Limited Cin- U28910MH1997PTC105768

Icici Bank Limited Vs Garware Nylons Limited and Anr.

Dwarkadhish Pharmavet Pvt. Ltd. Vs -