Disposed

M/S. Rapid Radio Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Beegees Computers Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U30000MH1995PTC088070

Bombay HC6 Jun 2016CP/880/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Petitioner filed a winding-up petition claiming Rs.7,58,657/. The parties settled, agreeing the Respondent would pay Rs.5,97,368/-. Upon timely payment, the petition dismisses; upon default, it is admitted with directions for newspaper advertisements.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to pay Rs.5,97,368/- by 1 August, 2016; default results in admission of petition and advertisement; on-time payment leads to dismissal.

M/S. Rapid Radio Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Beegees… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

5.cp.880.2014.doc

¶2

dik

¶3

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

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 880 OF 2014

¶5

Rapid Radio Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner vs Beegees Computers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

¶6

Mr Jay Joshi a/w Ms Bhairavi Pathare a/w Mr Niteen Menon i/b M/s I.R.Joshi & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms Deepti Panda a/w Mr Pratik Amin i/b Maniar Srivastava Associates for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA J.

¶8

JUNE 06, 2016

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This Company Petition has been filed seeking to wind up

¶11

the Respondent Company M/s Beegees Computers Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. The claim in the petition arises out of the supply of some software by the Petitioner to the Respondent company which were installed in the office of Hindustan Aeronautic Ltd. The claim in the petition along with interest is a sum of Rs.7,58,657/-. After the matter was argued for some time, the parties have agreed to the following order being passed;

¶12

(i) The Respondent company undertakes to pay the

¶13

Pg 1 of 3

¶14

5.cp.880.2014.doc

¶15

principal sum of Rs.5,97,368/- to the Petitioner, and the Petitioner in turn has agreed to accept the said sum in full and final settlement of its claim in the present Company Petition;

¶16

(ii) The aforesaid sum of Rs.5,97,368/- shall be paid by the Respondent Company to the Petitioner on or before 1 August, 2016. If the said payment is made on or before said date, this Company Petition shall stand dismissed and the Petitioner shall have no claim against the Respondent Company in relation to subject matter of the Company Petition;

¶17

(iii) In the event, the Respondent Company commits default in making the aforesaid payment or any part thereof, the Company Petition shall stand admitted and made returnable on 29 August, 2016. It shall thereafter be advertised in two local newspapers viz. (i) “ Free

¶18

Press Journal” (in English) and (ii) “ Navshakti” (in Marathi) as also in (iii) “ Maharashtra Government Gazette” . Any delay in publication of the advertisement in the Maharashtra Government

¶19

Pg 2 of 3

¶20

5.cp.880.2014.doc

¶21

Gazette and any resultant inadequacy of notice shall not invalidate such advertisement or notice and shall not constitute non-compliance with this direction or with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959;

¶22

(iv)

¶23

In the event, the Company Petition shall stand admitted, the Petitioner shall, on or before 10 August, 2016 deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards publication charges with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court under intimation to the Company Registrar, failing which the Company Petition shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. After the advertisements are issued, the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the Petitioner;

¶24

(v) The Company Petition is disposed of, accordingly. There shall be no oder as to costs.

¶25

( B. P. COLABAWALLA J. )

¶26

Pg 3 of 3

M/S. Rapid Radio Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Beegees Computers Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U30000MH1995PTC088070

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Rapid Radio Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Beegees Computers Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U30000MH1995PTC088070

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinodkumar Krishnamurari Goenka Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

Asif Balwa Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

Framework Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs -

Aramex India Private Ltd. Vs Maxx Mobilink Private Limited Cin -U74990MH2008PTC188380

Mr. Sanjay Shridhar Vaze Vs Mandke and Mandke Infrastructure Pvt. Limited (Cin U45203PN2010PTC137340)

Sukhdev Yadav Vs Gammon India Limited Cin No. L74999MH1922PLC000997