Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
COMP/3/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
PETITION No. 3 of 2010
=========================================================
SILCOTEX
SILICONES PRIVATE LIMITED - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PEE
TEE SILK MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
VAIBHAVI K PARIKH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date
: 17/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
petition has been presented under Sections 433 and 434 of the
Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) seeking order of winding of the
respondent company, Pee Tee Silk Mills Private Limited in
backdrop of following averments.
2. It
is the say of the petitioner company that the petitioner had been
carrying on business since number of years with respondent and a
running account is being maintained in the Books of Accounts of the
petitioner. Respondent has failed to make payment of the outstanding
dues to the tune of Rs.2,21,609/- comprised of Rs.1,46,418/- as the
principal amount and Rs.75,191/- as interest for the goods supplied
by the petitioner to the respondent company. Accordingly
statutory notice dated 15/10/2009 was sent by the learned Advocate of
the petitioner under registered post acknowledgment due to the
respondent company which came to be served on 19/10/2009 as per
certificate issued by Postal Department on 19/11/2009. It is further
averred that despite receipt of statutory notice respondent
company has not only not replied to the statutory notice but failed
to discharge its outstanding liability.
3. After
hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner Notice was issued on
11/01/2010 making it returnable on 09/02/2010. On 09/02/2010 the
Court recorded that as the service had been effected only on
27/01/2010 one more opportunity was granted to the respondent.
Despite such an opportunity there is no appearance on behalf of
respondent.
4. In
the circumstances it is apparent that the statutory presumption
envisaged by provisions of Section 433 and 434 of the Act read
together has arisen and the same remains unrebutted. Despite
service of notice issued by this Court respondent has failed to
appear. Hence in light of the statutory presumption which remains
unrebutted it is apparent that respondent company has failed to
either discharge its liability or make satisfactory arrangement for
discharging such liability as required by provisions of the Act.
Hence Admit.
5. Publication
of notice is deferred leaving it open to the petitioner to effect
service of this order of admission.
6. Matter
to come up on 09/03/2010.
(D.A.Mehta,
J.)
sompura
Top