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

COMPANY PETITION NO. 122 OF 2012

M/s Elmech Engineers. ..Petitioner. Vs. Ahura Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent.

Mr.Sandeep R.Jalan, for petitioner. None for respondent.

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR J. Thursday, 20 December, 2012.

P.C.:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By this Company petition the petitioner seeks winding up of Ahura Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

2. The petitioner supplied certain building material to the Company. The delivery challans and invoices specified that the payment was to be done within 30 days and thereafter the interest was agreed at 24 % p.a. Since the amount due and payable to the petitioner was not paid, the petitioner issued a statutory notice on 16 November 2011 and called upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.1,44,049/- with interest. The statutory notice was returned unserved with remark "refused". There was no reply to the statutory notice nor any correspondence took place between the parties. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present Company petition.

"4. From the aforesaid facts, I am satisfied that an amount of Rs.2,03,156/- along with further interest thereon as per the Particulars of Claim annexed and marked as Exhibit 'V' to the Petition 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 after receipt of the said notice. As can be seen from the Affidavit of Service of the Company Petition, though a copy of the Company Petition is served on the Company, the Company has not come forward to defend the same. The submissions/contentions made/advanced in the Company Petition have therefore remained uncontroverted. I am therefore satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debts".

The petition thereafter has been duly advertised. There was no appearance on behalf of the Company at the time of admission and no appearance till today has been filed neither any reply opposing grant of relief prayed for in the petition has been filed.

4. The claim of the petitioner has not been refuted nor replied to by the respondent-Company. There is absolutely no defence placed on record much less any bonafide defence. Even after admission of the petition the Company has not appeared. The office remark shows that notice under Rule 28 issued on 4 July 2012 has been duly served on respondent-Company. Even the factum of admission of the petition has been widely advertised. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per paragraph no.4 (iv) of the order dated 14 June 2012 the petitioner has served a copy of the order on the respondent-Company by way of registered post.

5. It is thus clear that a case for winding up of respondent-Company is made out. Accordingly, Company petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), (b) and (c). The amount of Rs.10,000/- which has been deposited by the petitioner with The Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court towards publication of charges shall be refunded to the petitioner.

N.M.JAMDAR, J.