Allowed

L and T Finance Limited v. Omnitech Infosolutions Ltd. (Cin L30007MH1990PLC055256)

Bombay HC18 Mar 2015CP/499/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this company petition, the petitioner L & T Finance Limited sought winding up of the respondent company for inability to pay debts due to non-payment of lease rentals. The company failed to reply to notices or file an affidavit-in-reply. The court, noting lack of assets and high liabilities, allowed the petition for winding up and appointed an official liquidator.

What did the court decide?

Winding up of the respondent company ordered under the Companies Act, 1956; appointment of an official liquidator.

L and T Finance Limited Vs Omnitech Infosolutions Ltd… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2015)

KPPNair

CP-499-2014

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

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO. 499 OF 2014

¶6

L & T Finance Limited … Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Omnitech Infosolutions Limited … Respondent

¶9

Ms. S.I. Joshi, instructed by M/s. S.I. Joshi & Company, for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhineet Sharma for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 18th March, 2015

¶11

P.C.

¶12

By the above Company Petition, the Petitioner seeks winding up of M/s. Omnitech Infosolutions Limited ( the Company ) under the Companies Act, 1956. The Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

¶13

According to the Petitioner, at the request of the Company the Petitioner in March 2012 granted a lease facility (the said lease facility) to the Company for IT and Office Equipments to the extent of Rs. 2 Crores and an Agreement for Lease dated 2^nd March, 2012 was executed between the parties. The Company failed and neglected to pay the lease rentals to the Petitioner as agreed under the said Agreement dated 2^nd March, 2012.

¶14

The Petitioner therefore through its Advocate issued a statutory notice dated 31^st October, 2013 calling upon the Company to pay an amount of Rs. 1,58,22,128.88 with interest thereon as claimed within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of the said statutory notice. The Company received the said

¶15

KPPNair 2 CP-499-2014

¶16

statutory notice but failed to reply to the same. 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. The Company received a copy of the Petition as far back as on 7^th August, 2014 but failed and neglected to file its Affidavit-inReply to oppose the above Company Petition.

¶17

The above Petition was taken up for admission on 28^th November,2014 when Shri Gaurav Sharma, Company Secretary of the Company in response to a query raised by the Court stated that the Company has no fixed assets but has liabilities to the tune of Rs.250 Crores. The Company Petition was therefore admitted and directed to be advertised. Paragraph 5 of the order is relevant and reproduced hereunder:

¶18

5. From the aforestated facts, it prima facie appears that an amount Rs. 1,58,22,129.88/- is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner. The Company has failed to respond to the statutory notice. The Company has not filed its Affidavit-inReply to the Petition. The Company Secretary Shri Sharma has informed the Court that the Company has no fixed assets but has liabilities to the tune of Rs. 250 Crores. In view thereof, the statements / submissions made by the Petitioner in the Company Petition have remained uncontroverted and there is no reason why the statements / submissions made by the Petitioner in the Company Petition should not be accepted. 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. ..”

¶19

The Admission of the Company Petition was thereafter advertised and the

KPPNair

CP-499-2014

Petition along with five other Petitions appeared before this Court from time to time for hearing and final disposal.

¶24

On 3^rd February, 2015, this Court was informed that a CDR Scheme has been approved and that M/s. Axis Bank is the monitoring agency. The Petitioner in the above Petition as well as the other Petitioners appearing in Company Petition Nos. 366 of 2014, 428 of 2014, 434 of 2014, 518 of 2014 and 544 of 2014 informed the Court that they are not parties to the CDR scheme and are entitled in law to seek winding up of the Company. However, this Court on 3^rd February, 2015, passed the following order:

¶25

“ The Company shall file its Affidavit-in-Reply on or before 0902-2015 and shall annex thereto all the documents referred to and/or relied upon therein. The Company undertakes to forward a copy of the Affidavit to the Advocate for the Petitioners on or before 07-02-2015. M/s. Axis Bank/Monitoring Agency shall remain present before this Court on 09-02-2015 at 11.00 a.m. Stand over to 09-022015.”

¶26

However till date the Company has failed and neglected to file any affidavit-inreply to the above Petition.

¶27

Despite the aforestated conduct of the Company, this Court gave an opportunity to the Company to submit a proposal as to how they intend to make payments to the above Petitioner and also the Petitioners in the other five Petitions. The Company tendered a payment schedule in Court wherein they agreed to pay 2.5 per cent of the debt of the Petitioners during the quarter

¶28

KPPNair 4 CP-499-2014

¶29

January – March, 2015, nil amount for the quarter April – June, 2015, 2.5 per cent for the quarter July – September, 2015, 10 per cent for the quarter October – December, 2015, 15 per cent for every quarter from January – March, 2016 upto January – March, 2017 and 10 per cent for the quarter April – June, 2017. The Company refused to pay any interest to the Petitioners. The Petitioner informed the Court that the payment schedule offered by the Company is not acceptable to them. However, this Court gave time to the Company to try and improve its offer and consider payment of some interest to the Petitioners. Instead of improving the offer, today the Learned Advocate appearing for the Company informs the Court that M/s. Axis Bank has informed them that the Company cannot make payments to the Petitioners who are unsecured creditors even as per the payment schedule handed over in Court. In view thereof, the Company is unable to make any offer of repayment to the Petitioner. This Court is therefore satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debts and deserves to be wound up. In view thereof, the following order is passed:

¶30

The Company Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b ) which are reproduced hereunder:

¶31

(a) That the said Respondent Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Omnitech House, A-13, 13, Kondivita Road Cross Road No.5, Marol, MIDC, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093, be wound up by an order and under the directions of this Hon'ble Court under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956;

KPPNair

CP-499-2014

(b) That the Official Liquidator, of High Court, Bombay, be appointed as Liquidator of the said Company for all its assets, properties, bank accounts and book debts with necessary powers under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956.”

¶36

The Official Liquidator is directed to forthwith act on an ordinary copy of this Order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court without waiting for

¶37

any further notification.

¶38

(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.)

L and T Finance Limited v. Omnitech Infosolutions Ltd. (Cin L30007MH1990PLC055256)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L and T Finance Limited v. Omnitech Infosolutions Ltd. (Cin L30007MH1990PLC055256)

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

Green Valley Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gammon India Limited (Cin L74999MH1922PLC000997)

Vidhushree Krishnakumr Agarwal Vs Phillip Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. (Cin U67120MH2003PTC142627)

M/S Bahety Infrastructure Vs M/S Unity Infra Projects Ltd. Cin -L9999MH1997PLC107153

Vr Accounting Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Transactional Documents India Pvt. Ltd. (Cin U74999MH2003PTC140215)

M/S. Neo Impex Stainless Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Calchem Industries India Ltd. (Cin U99999MH1992PLC065696)

Nikhil Naresh Gupta Vs Registrar of Companies Mumbai