M/S. K Consultants v. Arya Diamond Jewellery Cin No. U27205mh2008ptc183767
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.433 OF 2015 M/s. K. Consultants ....Petitioner Vs.
Arya Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.
....Respondent ---- Mr. Prakash Shinde i/b. MDP and Partners for petitioner. None for respondent.
---- CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.
DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2018 P.C.:
Further to the order dated 15th December, 2017, the Company Department has filed a service report dated 9th January, 2018 stating that the notice under Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 that was sent to the company has been returned undelivered with the endorsement "left." Mr. Shinde, counsel for petitioner states that even today the Company Master Data maintained by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs indicates that the registered address of the company is the same address to which notice under Rule 28 was sent. Mr. Shinde tenders an extract of the Company Master Data taken today from the MCA website, which is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Therefore, notice under Rule 28 is deemed to have been served upon respondent company. As recorded in the order dated 15th December, 2017, the amount of Rs.30 lakhs is yet to be deposited. Post 15th December, 2017
2/3 respondent company has not filed any affidavit opposing the petition. Before this Court passed the order dated 7th April, 2016 and 17th October, 2016 the Court had considered the affidavit in reply and also considered the submissions made by the counsel for respondent company. It has been noted that the counsel for respondent had made a statement that they are willing to pay Rs.30 lakhs to petitioner in full and final settlement of petitioner's claim within six months. The six months period expired some time in October, 2016.
I have heard the counsel for petitioner and also considered the petition, various affidavits filed and documents annexed to the petition. I am also satisfied that the company is indebted to petitioner, is unable to discharge its debts, is commercially insolvent and requires to be wound up. I must also note that respondent company has not filed any evidence even to suggest that the company is commercially solvent. In the circumstances, company petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses - (a) and (b) which read as under : (a) that respondent company, namely Arya Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., be wound up by and under the order and directions of this Hon'ble Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956;
(b) that Official Liquidator attached to the High Court, Bombay be appointed as Liquidator of the company, namely Arya Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., with all powers under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 including
3/3 powers to take charge of the assets, affairs, books of accounts, records, documents, papers, vouchers, bills, etc. of respondent company, namely Arya Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.
Official Liquidator to take steps immediately without waiting for notification.
Company petition accordingly stands disposed. (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)