Allowed

Deepak Patange, Sole Prop of Jp Skytek Engineering v. Intensiv Filter India Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.U74996PN2006PTC130448

Bombay HC13 Oct 2014CP/539/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an unopposed winding-up petition, the Court found the Company unable to pay its debts due to an outstanding invoice balance and service of statutory notice unchelenge d. The petition was allowed and winding-up orders pronounced, appointing an Official Liquidator forthwith.

What did the court decide?

The Company (Respondent) is ordered to be wound up under the supervision of this Court, and the Official Liquidator is appointed to act forthwith.

Deepak Patange, Sole Prop of Jp Skytek Engineering… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

cp 539 of 2013 (927).sxw

¶2

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

¶3

COMPANY PETITION NO.539 OF 2013

¶4

Deepak Patange, Sole Prop. Of JP Skytek Engineering … Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

M/s. Intensiv Filter India Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent

¶7

Ms. Neeta Jain i/by Mr. Anil T. Agarwal, for Petitioner. None for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶9

DATE: 13^th OCTOBER, 2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

By the above Petition, the Petitioner seeks winding up of the Respondent Company – Intensive Filter India Pvt. Ltd. (“the Company”) under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”). The Company Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

¶12

According to the Petitioner, the Company had approached him with a request to supply air tanks and hot bends (“goods”) manufactured by him.

¶13

According to the Petitioner, pursuant to the purchase orders dated 26^th September, 2011 (as amended by the purchase order dated 7th April, 2012) and 28^th March, 2012, the Petitioner sold, supplied and delivered the goods to the Company. With respect to the said supplies, the Petitioner raised invoices dated 5th March, 2012, 10th March, 2012, 17th March, 2012, 27th

¶14

1/4

¶15

ssp

¶16

cp 539 of 2013 (927).sxw

¶17

March, 2012 and 28th March, 2012 on the Company for an aggregate amount of Rs. 23,18,926/-. An advance payment of Rs. 1,78,560/was made by the Company to the Petitioner on 3rd October, 2011. However, the Company only paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 3rd November, 2012 and Rs. 1,50,000/on 4^th February, 2013, from the Company leaving a balance of Rs. 14,90,366/along with interest thereon. The Company confirmed the aforesaid outstanding as due and payable from time to time more particularly by its email dated 14th December, 2012.

¶18

The Petitioner therefore through his Advocates served a statutory notice on the Company calling upon the company to pay an amount of Rs. 18,38,970.52 with interest thereon at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the respective due dates of the invoices until payment and/or realisation within 21 days from the receipt of the statutory notice by the Company. The Company failed and neglected to respond to the statutory notice or to comply with the requisitions set out therein. The Petitioner therefore filed the present Company Petition and sought to serve the same at the registered address of the Company. However, the same was returned with the remark that the addressee is not found.

¶19

The above Petition was admitted and directed to be advertised by an order dated 13-08-2014. Paragraph 5 of the said order is relevant and

¶20

2/4

¶21

ssp

¶22

cp 539 of 2013 (927).sxw

¶23

reproduced hereunder : -

¶24

“5. From the aforestated facts it is established that an amount of Rs.18,38,970.52 is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner along with interest as claimed. The Company has failed and neglected to respond to the statutory notice and has also not made any payments to the Petitioner after receipt of the said notice. The Petition sought to be served on the Company is returned with the remark that the addressee is not found. Since the Petition was sought to be served at the registered address of the Company, which address on that day is shown as the registered office of the Company in the records of the Registrar of Companies, the Company Petition is deemed to have been served on the Company though the same has been returned with the remark that the addressee is not found. In view thereof all that is stated in the Company Petition has remained uncontroverted. I am therefore satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debts and is commercially insolvent.

¶25

Pursuant thereto, the Petition has been advertised. Affidavit

¶26

proving publication dated 11-09-2014 is on record. Order of admission of the Company Petition as well as Notice under Rule 28 of the Company Court (Rules), 1959 sought to be served on the Company are returned back with the remark “not residing at given address, hence returned”. Since the said notice was sought to be served at the Registered Address of the Company as available with the Registrar of Companies, the service of notice under Rule 28 is implied, though the same is returned with the said remark. Even at this stage, the Company has not come forward to oppose the Petition. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debt, is

¶27

3/4

¶28

ssp

¶29

cp 539 of 2013 (927).sxw

¶30

commercially insolvent and deserves to be wound up. The Company Petition is

¶31

therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which is reproduced hereunder :

¶32

(a) that the Respondent Company namely Intensiv Filter India Pvt. Ltd., Pune, having its registered office at 2^nd Floor, A-30, Satyam Arcade, Pune-Nagar Road, Near Ramwadi Octroi Post, Pune – 411 014, be wound up and under the orders and supervision of this Hon'ble Court;

¶33

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint the Official Liquidator attached to the High Court of Bombay or some other fit and proper persona s the Liquidator of the said Company with all powers under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and in law generally.

¶34

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

¶35

The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶37

4/4

¶38

ssp

Deepak Patange, Sole Prop of Jp Skytek Engineering v. Intensiv Filter India Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.U74996PN2006PTC130448

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Patange, Sole Prop of Jp Skytek Engineering v. Intensiv Filter India Pvt.Ltd., Cin NO.U74996PN2006PTC130448

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

Remco Paper and Board Industries Vs -

M/S.Western Cans Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S.Capital Foods Ltd., Cin NO.U15134MH1995PLC085541

Sitel Operating Corporation India Limited Vs -

Syndicate Bank Vs M/S Micro Technologies (India) Limited Cin No. L3007MH1992PLC068558

Gsd Properties and Trading Pvt.Ltd. Vs Dr.Purnima Skin Care Pvt.Ltd, Cin NO.U85100MH2007PTC172335

Dr. Mrs Juthika Nadig and 1 Ors. Vs Birla Power Solutions Limited CIN-L31101MH1984PLC032773)