( 1 ) MR. Ajay R. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner in each case. None for the respondent though name of Mr. Sanjay M. Amin is shown on the daily board. ( 2 ) AS the matters are listed for final hearing, I proceeded exparte against the respondent and heard Mr. Mehta for the petitioner. Company Petition No. 30/05 has been filed by M/s. Harikripa Paper Co. , a trader dealing in paper and paper boards and also working as agent for supply of paper and paper boards manufactured by various manufacturers. Company Petition No. 31 of 2005 has been filed by M/s. Kalyan Papers, who are also traders of paper and paper boards and also working as agents for supply of paper and paper boards manufactured by various manufacturers. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to M/s. Harikripa Paper Company, the respondent company, namely, M/s. Digital Multiforms limited, having its registered office at 60/1, Village palodia, Taluka-Kalol, District:mehsana, is a paper limited company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, registered office of the respondent company is situated at 60/1, Village Palodia, Taluka-Kalol, district:gandhinagar. It is the submission of the petitioners that the authorized capital of the respondent company is Rs. 4,50,00,000/- divided into 45,00,000 shares of Rs. 10/- each, whereas subscribed and paid up capital of the company is Rs. 4,22,10,000/- divided into 42,21,000 fully paid up shares of Rs. 10/- each. According to the petitioners, the petitioners and the respondent company were having good business relations and were having business for last more than ten years. The petitioners, as per the requirements of the respondent company used to supply, sell and deliver various quantity of paper and for such sale used to raise the invoices against the respondent company. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that as per the mutually agreed terms, the amount shown in the invoices was payable within 90 days from the date thereof and in case of non-payment, the respondent company was answerable to pay interest on the balance outstanding at the rate of 24% per annum from the due date. It is also the case of the petitioners that in view of the longstanding business relations, the petitioners were maintaining the account of the respondent company in the petitioners books of accounts. It is also the case of the petitioners that in view of the longstanding business relations, the petitioners were maintaining the account of the respondent company in the petitioners books of accounts. The company, many times, did not send payments excactly as per the invoices, but used to send lump sum/ rounded of payments which could be credited in favour of the company in the petitioners books of accounts. According to them, there was no dispute relating to supply of goods by the petitioner to the company or receipt of the said goods by the said company. ( 5 ) IT is submitted by the petitioners that since year 2000, the respondent company became erratic in making payments, but in view of the longstanding relations, the petitioners continued to supply the goods to the respondent company. Goods were supplied with the condition that the company would issue "c" Form or Form no. 26 as per the invoices as per the invoices as required under the provisions of the Sales Act, but the respondent failed and neglected in furnishing the said sales tax forms. According to the petitioners, the respondent company failed and neglected to pay the principal amount of Rs. 63,43,043/-, which was due as on 31st March, 2004 over which the petitioners are entitled to interest of Rs. 29,36,714/- as on 31st March, 2004. According to the petitioners, total liability of the respondent is Rs. 92,79,457. The petitioners submit that the petitioners had various discussions with the directors of the company, promises were made, assurances were given and words of exchange, but no payment was made. According to the petitioners, the respondent required the petitioners to bear with the respondent company as it was facing short-term financial crisis. The petitioners accordingly did not take any action. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, wisdom dawned upon them and they realized that the respondent company was acting fraudulently, was acting with mala fide intention and was simply gaining time and was not ready and willing to make payments to which the petitioners were entitled. Pressed by the circumstances and persuaded by the conduct of the respondent, the petitioners took assistance of the legal acumen and issued notice under Section 343 of the companies Act, 1956 through their advocate. The notice was duly received by the respondent company at its registered office, so also at its corporate office. Pressed by the circumstances and persuaded by the conduct of the respondent, the petitioners took assistance of the legal acumen and issued notice under Section 343 of the companies Act, 1956 through their advocate. The notice was duly received by the respondent company at its registered office, so also at its corporate office. According to the petitioners, they had clearly stated in the notice that the particular principal amount and particular interest amount was due as on 31. 3. 2004 and despite requests and repeated reminders, the respondents were not making payments. The petitioners counsel also suggested to the respondent company that they had become financially insolvent and if they did not make payment, a presumption would be raised under Sec. 434 of the companies Act that the respondent company was unable to pay its debts. It was also informed to them that despite service of the notice, if the amount demanded is not paid, then, the petitioners would be compelled to take up the matter to the competent court seeking relief of winding up of the respondent company. ( 7 ) IT appears that after the service of notice, the respondent company, through its counsel sent its reply dated 2nd July, 2004. In the said reply, they had raised various defences, including the vagueness in the accounts, improper calculation of the interest and that sometimes, the goods supplied by them were not of the standard or quality. According to them, the consignment of 8 MT. was sub-standard and ultimately, the same was rejected and the respondent company was entitled to replacement of the consignment or the damages which they had supplied. ( 8 ) AS no payment was made to the petitioners companies, they had filed the present petitions on 21. 2. 2005. Notices were also ordered to be issued on 18. 2. 2005 and were made returnable on 11th April, 2005. On 12. 5. 2005, advocate Shri Sanjay M. Amin appeared in the matters and prayed for time to file reply in the matters. However, no reply was filed, therefore, on 18. 7. 2005, the Court admitted the petitions and directed that the final hearing of the petitions be advertised in Indian Express (English) and Jansatta-Loksatta (Gujarati), both ahmedabad editions. The advertisements were published on 7. 10. 2005 and affidavit to the said effect was filed in the Court on 13. 10. 2005. However, no reply was filed, therefore, on 18. 7. 2005, the Court admitted the petitions and directed that the final hearing of the petitions be advertised in Indian Express (English) and Jansatta-Loksatta (Gujarati), both ahmedabad editions. The advertisements were published on 7. 10. 2005 and affidavit to the said effect was filed in the Court on 13. 10. 2005. It is to be noted that by some lapse on the part of the office, the said affidavit filed in Company Petition No. 30/2005 has been placed in the records of Company Petition No. 31/2005. Despite publication of the date of hearing, the respondent did not file any reply in the matter. Nobody ever appeared before the Court to say that the matter was settled between the parties or some negotiations were going on or the respondent company has approached the petitioners with an assurance that the payment would be made. Despite publication of namely Shri Sanjay M. Amin in the daily board, the respondent company remains unrepresented. ( 9 ) MR. Ajay R. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent company has lost its substratum, it has become financially insolvent and despite statutory notices issued by the petitioner of each company petition, the respondent company has not made any payment. Sec. 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that a company may be wound up by the Court " [a] if a company has, by special resolution, resolved that the company be wound up by the court, [b] if default is made in delivering the statutory report to the Registrar or in holding the statutory meeting. [c] if the company does not commence its business within a year from its incorporation, or suspends its business for a whole year; [d] if the number of members is reduced, in the case of a public company, below seven, and in the case of a private company, below two; [e] if the company is unable to pay its debts; [f] if the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up; ( 10 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mehta, present respondent company is unable to pay its debts, therefore, the company should be wound up. Mehta, present respondent company is unable to pay its debts, therefore, the company should be wound up. Section 434 of the Companies Act provides that when company is deemed to be unable to pay its debts, it provides that the company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts - [a] if a creditor, by assignment or otherwise, to whom the company is indebted in a sum exceeding five hundred rupees then due, has served on the company, by causing it to be delivered at its registered office, by registered post or otherwise, a demand under his hand requiring the company to pay the sum due and the company has for three weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum, or to secure or compound for it to be reasonable satisfaction of the creditor; [b]if execution or other process issued on a decree or order of any Court in favour of a creditor of the company is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part; or [c] if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the company is unable to pay its debts, and, in determining whether a company is unable to pay its debts, the Court shall take into account the contingent and prospective liabilities of the company; according to Sub-Sec. [2] of Sec. 434, the demand referred to in clause [a] of sub-section [1] shall be deemed to have been duly given under the hand of the creditor if it is signed by any agent or legal adviser duly authorized on his behalf, or in the case of a firm, if it is signed by any such agent or legal adviser or by any member of the firm. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mehta, the company is indebted for a sum above and despite service of the company has not made payments nor within a period of three weeks arranged to make payment nor had continued the matter to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor. It is also submitted that even other creditors have not been paid. According to him, the company has become financially insolvent and looking to their conduct, the company deserves to be wound up. ( 12 ) I have already narrated the entire history and I have also observed that despite service of the notice of the filing of the petition and despite appearance of Mr. According to him, the company has become financially insolvent and looking to their conduct, the company deserves to be wound up. ( 12 ) I have already narrated the entire history and I have also observed that despite service of the notice of the filing of the petition and despite appearance of Mr. Sanjay M. Amin, no reply was filed. I have also found that despite publication of the date of hearing, nobody had filed reply and the company has chosen to remain absent. Under the circumstances and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I hold that the respondent company is heavily indebted to each of the petitioner and despite service of the statutory notice, notice of filing of the petition, publication of notice of final hearing, it has failed to make payment leading to the only presumption that it is unable to pay its debts. Each of the petition is allowed. The Company is directed to be wound up. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as Official liquidator of the Company. Within a period of twelve weeks from today, the Official Liquidator shall take possession of the properties (movable and immovable) of the company, account books, bank accounts, cash and all other things belonging to the company. If required, he may take help and assistance of the official valuer for preparation of the inventory. He would also be entitled to take assistance of the police to dispossess any person who makes or raises any objection at the time when the official Liquidator proceeds to take possession. The official Liquidator is hereby advised that instead of accepting the objections on the spot, he or his representative shall take help and assistance of the police and shall dispossess the persons found in possession of the property of the respondent company. The petitions are disposed of. Let the Official Liquidator submit his reports within sixteen weeks from today. .