Allowed

Rajesh Raheja v. M/Speacock Media Limited

Bombay HC4 Dec 2014CP/188/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a company petition seeking winding-up of M/s. Peacock Media Limited based on dishonoured cheques. The court deemed notices served at the registered office despite 'left' remark remarks. Finding the company unable to pay debts, the court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Company Petition was allowed, winding up the company under the Companies Act, 1956, and appointing the Official Liquidator.

Rajesh Raheja Vs M/Speacock Media Limited — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2014)

Nitin

941-CP-188-2013

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

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO. 188 OF 2013

¶6

Rajesh Raheja … Petitioner Versus M/s. Peacock Media Limited … Respondent

¶7

Mr. S.Y. Amare for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 4TH DECEMBER, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

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

¶11

According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner advanced a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of a cheque to the Company on 15th December 2010. The Company issued a post-dated cheque dated 12th June 2011 for Rs.2,50,000/- and requested the Petitioner to encash the same on 12th June 2011. The post dated cheque was towards the repayment of the sum advanced. The Company also handed over a bill of exchange dated 15th December 2010 in addition to the post-dated cheque. The post-dated cheque dated 12th June 2011 upon presentation was dishonoured. Thereafter the defendant Company issued two more cheques dated 4th October 2011 for Rs.13,500/ towards compensation

¶12

Nitin

¶13

2 941-CP-188-2013

¶14

and cheque dated 8th December 2012 for Rs.2,50,000/-. The cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- was dishonoured. Thereafter a statutory notice was issued under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Thereafter the present Petition is filed.

¶15

The above Company Petition was admitted and directed to be advertised by an order of this Court (Coram : N.M. Jamdar, J.) dated 11^th October, 2013. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said order dated 11^th October, 2013 are relevant and reproduced hereunder :

¶16

“4. The petitioner has served the respondent and has filed an affidavit of service stating that the packets have been returned with remark “left”. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the registered address of the Company continues to be the same. The view taken by this Court is that if the registered address continues to be the same the service will have to be treated as good service even though the remark is “left”. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is usual practice of the respondent Company to avoid service and there have been petitions filed against this Company.

¶17

5. Inspite of notice none has appeared to contest the petition. The fact of dishonour of cheques has been placed on record. After the first cheque was dishonoured two cheques were given thereafter, those have also been dishonoured. The respondent has executed a bill of Exchange. A reply has been

¶18

Nitin

¶19

3 941-CP-188-2013

¶20

given by the respondent to the notice under Section 434 in which no defence whatsoever has been disclosed except certain bald and evasive statements.

¶21

6. Considering the facts as placed on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that inspite of service of notice the respondent Company has failed and neglected to pay the debts of the petitioner. Therefore, case for admission of the petition is made out.”

¶22

The admission of the above Petition was thereafter advertised. Affidavit proving publication dated 31^st January, 2014 is on record. Notice under Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which was sought to be served on the Company is returned with the remark 'left', as can be seen from the service report dated 17^th December, 2013 filed by the Company Registrar. Since the Notice was sought to be served at the registered address of the Company, which address on that day was shown as the Registered Office of the Company in the record of the Registrar of Companies, the said Notice is deemed to have been served on the Company, though the same has been returned with the remark 'left'. Even at this stage, none appear for the Company. No Affidavit opposing the Petition has been filed by the Company. All the contentions of the Petitioner in the Petition have therefore remained uncontroverted

¶23

Nitin 4

¶24

941-CP-188-2013

¶25

and there is no reason why the allegations / submissions made by the Petitioner in the Company Petition should not be accepted..

¶26

For the reasons set out in the order dated 11^th October, 2013 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 clause (a) and (b), which are reproduced hereunder :

¶27

“(a) That the said Company Peacock Media Limited

¶28

registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 24/B, Appolo Industrial Estate, Off Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400093 be wound up by an order and under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ;

¶29

(b) That the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay

¶30

be appointed as the Liquidator of the said Respondent company of all its assets, properties, bank accounts and book-debts with necessary powers under the Companies Act, 1956 ".

¶31

The Official Liquidator to forthwith act on an ordinary copy of 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.

¶32

Nitin

¶33

5 941-CP-188-2013

¶34

The above Company Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.)

Rajesh Raheja v. M/Speacock Media Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Raheja v. M/Speacock Media Limited

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.Ajay Ketsey Sampat Vs Shri Mahavir Jaina Vidyalaya and Ors.

Inder Sukhramdas Gidwani Vs Vinchi Brothers and Co. and Others

Shri Mahavir Jaina Vidyalala and Ors. Vs Ajay Ketsey Sampat

Ms.Kavita Talreja, Sole Proprietor of M/S.Shree Investment Vs M/S.Novelty Power and Infratech Ltd., Cin NO.U27100MH2005PLC150870

Steel Barrel Private Limited Vs -

Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Private Limited Vs -