Bharwani Bros. v. Motorol (India) Ltd. — 1999 DIGILAW 446 (GUJ)

ORDER : S.D. Dave, J. Present orders shall govern the disposal of these seventeen company petitions presented by different petitioning creditors against the respondent-company known as 'Motorol (India) Ltd.' for winding up. 2. The respondent-company have got their office at Rinki R & D Centre, near Bombay Shopping Centre, R.C. Dutt Road, Baroda, and have got the Corporate Office at 116/117, Swastik Chambers, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Bombay-400 071. The nominal capital of the respondent-company is Rs. 6 crores divided into 60 lakhs of equity shares of Rs. 10. The issued, subscribed and paid-up capital of the respondent-company is Rs. 5,83,71,660. 3. The following table shows the company petition number, the name of the petitioning creditor, the amount outstanding and the nature of the claim : Company Ptn. No. Name of Petitioner Amount out Stng. Nature of claim 1. 159/95 Jayco Press (P.) Ltd. 21,90,000 Bill discounting 2. 37/96 Bharwani Bros. & Co. 15,04,786 Bill discounting 3. 219/96 Videocon Narmada Electronics Ltd 7,86,529 Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) 4. 235/96 Metrochem Inds. Ltd. 15,53,261 ICD, Short-term 5. 276/96 Century Textile & Inds. Ltd. 27,49,760 ICD 6. 29/97 Lubrizon India Ltd., 91,35,000 Price for goods sold & supplied 7. 72/97 Coimbatore Lakshmi Industries 28,56,475 Bill discounting 8. 283/97 A T O (1) Ltd. 1,70,202 Tpt. charges 9. 301/97 M.B. Parikh Fine-stocks Ltd. 6,25,000 Dues for purchase of shares 10. 313/97 I.T.C. Classic Finance Ltd. 36,10,006 + int. at 24% p.a. Hire purchase and rentals. 11. 383/97 Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. 2,97,42,392 + int. 24% p.a. For goods sold & and supplied. 12. 393/97 Mid India Inds. Ltd. 25,00,000 ICD 13. 39/98 Jetu Jacques Taru Lalwani. 1,52,61,561 Decretal dues in summary suit No. 3131/96, decreeted by Bombay High Court. 14. 79/98 vigro Frozen Foods (P.) Ltd. 59,02,400 + 36% int. p. a. ICD 15. 180/98 Monsanto Mfgrs. Pvt. Ltd. 84,32,000 ICD 16. 206/98 Radico Khaitan Ltd. 77,61,750 ICD 17. 208/98 Carborundum Universal Ltd. 25,73,194 ICD These petitions have been taken out under the provisions contained under section 433 and section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The case of each of the petitioning creditors is that, the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts and that, it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up. 208/98 Carborundum Universal Ltd. 25,73,194 ICD These petitions have been taken out under the provisions contained under section 433 and section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The case of each of the petitioning creditors is that, the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts and that, it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up. According to the petitioning creditors, though the statutory notices under section 434 have been issued and served to the respondent-company for the huge amounts, the respondent-company has neglected to pay the said sum even after the lapse of the statutory period. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the petitioning creditors and the learned counsel for the respondent-company Mr. Soparkar, it appears that the company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 433 and section 434. 5. It cannot be disputed that before filing of the company petitions for winding up of the respondent-company every efforts came to be made by the petitioning creditors for realisation of the amounts due. Before the filing of these petitions, the respondent-company in some cases had given the cheques which have not been honoured and have been bounced. The respondent-company in some cases had held out the promises to make the payments in near future and necessary memorandum of understanding came to be executed by the respondent-company. Any how the respondent-company has failed to act according to the promises and conditions of the MOU. During the pendency of the petitions before admission, the respondent-company in some of the cases had preferred to handover the cheques once again but they have not been honoured, but have been bounced. The conditional orders passed by the learned Company Judge have not been taken care of and they have been violated. Even after the admission of the matters the statutory advertisement came to be deferred upon the plea coming from the respondent-company. During this time also the respondent-company has not been able to discharge its own obligations. The orders admitting the petitions and the orders of the statutory advertisements came to be carried in the 0 J Appeals. There also the promises were made for the effective discharge of the financial obligations on the part of the respondent-company. Any how before the O J Bench the respondent-company has not been able to honour the commitments and ultimately the 0 J Appeals have been dismissed. There also the promises were made for the effective discharge of the financial obligations on the part of the respondent-company. Any how before the O J Bench the respondent-company has not been able to honour the commitments and ultimately the 0 J Appeals have been dismissed. Thereafter also a considerable time has been taken by the respondent-company, but the payments have not been made. 6. All these aspects of the matter would go to show that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 433 and section 434 and, therefore, the respondent-company requires to be wound up under the orders of this Court. 7. I, therefore, upon a careful consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter, order and direct that the respondent-company be wound up under the provisions of the Act. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as the Official Liquidator of the respondent-company, now in liquidation. The learned Official Liquidator shall have to act according to the statutory obligations under the Act. The registry is directed to send the intimation qua these orders to the Official Liquidator and the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat, at Ahmedabad, forthwith. 8. The learned counsel Mr. Soparkar for the respondent-company has urged that, in case of the orders being pronounced against the respondent-company, the same should be stayed up to 31-8-1999, so as to enable the respondent-company to take the matters in appeals. Acting upon the said request coming from the learned counsel, I order accordingly.