Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
COMP/203/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
PETITION No. 203 of 2009
=========================================
UTTAM
GALVA STEELS LIMITED - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BIL
METAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
RAHUL K PANDYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MRS SWATI SOPARKAR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 10/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Present
Company Petition has been preferred by the petitioner Creditor
for an appropriate order of winding up of respondent Company under
section 433 and section 434 of the Companies Act.
2. Today
when the petition is taken up for hearing, Ms.Soparkar, learned
Advocate for the respondent has tendered additional affidavit dated
10.05.2010 affirmed by one Mr.Rajesh Raval, Sr.Manager and Authorized
Signatory of the respondent Company. Ms.Soparkar, learned Advocate
for the respondent Company has submitted that respondent Company
admits claim of the petitioner Company of Rs.11,35,383/- (principal
amount with 7.5% interest per annum). It is submitted that out of
aforesaid amount, sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is already paid to the
petitioner on 07.05.2010. It is further submitted by Ms.Soparkar,
learned Advocate for the respondent that balance amount of
Rs.8,85,383/- shall be paid by respondent Company to the petitioner
by way of full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioner
against the respondent Company as per schedule mentioned in para 4 of
the additional affidavit i.e. by monthly installment of Rs.1 lac
commencing from 07.06.2010 and last installment would be due on
07.02.2011 which would of Rs.85,383/-. Additional affidavit is
directed to be taken on record. Respondent Company is directed to act
as per additional affidavit dated 10.05.2010 affirmed by one
Mr.Rajesh Raval. On payment of entire amount of Rs.11,35,383/-, there
shall not be any claim by the petitioner against the respondent
Company.
3. In
view of above, Mr.Unmesh Shukla, learned Advocate for the petitioner
does not press present petition. However, liberty to apply in case of
difficulty.
4. With
these, present Company Petition is disposed of as not pressed.
[M.R.Shah,J.]
satish
Top