w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Prasad S.L.N. v/s Sky High Fashion Private Limited, Bangalore & Another

    Company Petition No.203 of 2009

    Decided On, 20 March 2012

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

    For the Petitioner: S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate. For the Respondents: K.H. Jagadish, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. The petitioner who is the Proprietor of the Supra Kraft Fact has filed the instant petition under Section 433(e), 433(f) and Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying that the respondent-company be ordered to be wound up.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-company which is engaged in the business of marketing garments had placed orders with the petitioner for supply or corrugated boxes, printed cartons etc., for their business purpose. In that regard, the supplies made by the petitioner to the respondent-company has been indicated in the ledger maintained by the petitioner. An extract of the ledger for the period from 1-3-2007 to 31-3-2008 is produced to contend that after deducting the payments made by the respondent-company, they were still due in a sum of Rs.6,65,599.04 ps. The petitioner alleges that the respondent-company had failed to pay the said amount and even though a letter dated 11-5-2009 was addressed, the respondent-company neither responded to the same nor paid the amount.

3. In that view, the petitioner got issued a statutory notice as contemplated under Section 434 of the Companies Act dated 19-10-2009. The statutory notice is produced at Annexure-E to the petition and the same indicates that the petitioner has demanded the amount along with the interest. The proof for dispatch of the same and service of the statutory notice at the registered office of the respondent is produced at Annexures-F to H. It is in that context, the petitioner contends that the respondent-company are not only due to the said amount indicated therein, but have neglected to pay the same. According to the petitioner, the fact that the respondent-company have not disputed the averments made in the statutory notice would disclose that they are not commercially solvent to discharge the amount due and payable to the petitioner.

4. The respondent-company are served and they are represented by a learned Counsel. However, the objections are not filed opposing the instant petition. When the matter was listed before this Court on 9-6-2010, this Court was pleased to admit the petition and ordered advertisement, which has been complied by the petitioner. Even thereafter, there is no effort whatsoever on behalf of the respondent-company either to pay the amount or dispute the claim put forth in the petition.

5. The above sequence would indicate that the respondent-company in fact are not in a position to discharge their liabilities. As such, it would be just and equitable to order winding up of the respondent-company.

6. In the result, the following:

ORDER

(I) The petition is allowed.

(II) The Official Liquidator shall take over the assets of the respondent-company and proceed further in accordance with law.

(III) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) initially with the office of the Official Liquidator for the purpose of further process in the matter.

(IV) The petitioner is directed to file a certifie

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d copy of this order with the Registrar of Companies, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (V) The petitioner is further directed to take out the advertisement of this order in 'The Hindu' English daily newspaper within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
O R