M/S.Mouldtech Ferrocast Pvt.Ltd vs M/S.Mekaster Engineering Ltd

1. This petition has been preferred under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, with a prayer to wind­up the respondent­Company and appoint the Official Liquidator attached to this Court as the Liquidator of the said Company.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is engaged in the business of the supply of different types of Ferrous Casting. During the course of business, the respondent­Company has supplied the necessary raw­material to the petitioner from time to time and the petitioner Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Wed May 04 04:54:19 IST 2016 O/COMP/437/2015 ORDER has used the same and supplied finished goods on conversion basis to the respondent­Company. The Job Work was carried out by the petitioner as per the requirements of the respondent­Company and, accordingly, the goods, S.G.Iron Casting, were delivered to the respondent­Company from time to time. It is stated that according to the petitioner, there is no dispute that the respondent­Company has received the goods and utilized the final product, namely Ferrous Casting, supplied by the petitioner. As per the normal business terms, the petitioner was entitled to raise periodical invoices for the job charges for conversion and the respondent­ Company was duty bound to make the payment immediately either by Demand Drafts or Cheques issued at par payable at Ahmedabad in favour of the petitioner on the next day. However, after the petitioner raised invoices for the Job Work and sent them to the respondent­Company, no payment was made by the respondent­Company. The petitioner has time and again requested the respondent­Company to make the payment of the Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Wed May 04 04:54:19 IST 2016 O/COMP/437/2015 ORDER outstanding dues amounting to Rs.5,14,202/­, plus interest. The petitioner has sent a statutory notice to the respondent­Company on 15.07.2015, which has been received by the respondent­Company as per the status of the Postal Department, annexed at running page 30 of the petition. However, the respondent­Company has not given the reply to the said notice nor has it disputed the claim of the petitioner or the quality of the goods supplied. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

3. Notice was issued in the petition on 18.02.2016.

On 25.04.2016, this Court has recorded that as per the endorsement on the Board, the respondent has been served but none appeared on its behalf on that day. The same was the position on 15.03.2016 and 05.04.2016. A last opportunity was granted to the respondent­Company in order to appear and defend the petition, failing which the Court would hear the matter on merits and pass an appropriate order. The situation is the same today as, in spite of service of Notice, Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Wed May 04 04:54:19 IST 2016 O/COMP/437/2015 ORDER none has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. This Court has heard Mr.Nitin Y.Divate, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by him that the dues of the petitioner have not been disputed by the respondent­Company and an amount of Rs.5,14,202/­ towards the principal amount plus interest is due and outstanding, which amount has not been disputed by the respondent. It is further submitted that no dispute has been raised by the respondent regarding the quality of the goods or the Job Work done by the petitioner. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner is unable to pay the outstanding dues of the petitioner and appears to have lost its financial substratum.

5. This Court has heard learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the averments made in the petition as well as the documents on record.

6. There is nothing on record to indicate that any dispute has been raised by the respondent­ Company regarding either the dues of the petitioner or the quality of the goods supplied Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Wed May 04 04:54:19 IST 2016 O/COMP/437/2015 ORDER by the petitioner. In spite of several opportunities, the respondent­Company has not appeared before the Court to defend the petition. Considering the above aspects, this Court would prima­facie consider that the respondent is unable to pay its dues and it could be possible that it has lost its financial substratum.

7. In view of the above, the following order is passed:

The petition is admitted.

The Registry is directed to notify the petition for final hearing on 15.06.2016. In order to give a last opportunity to the respondent­Company to make the payment of the outstanding dues of the petitioner, the publication of the admission of the petition is deferred till the next date of hearing.

8. If the respondent­Company does not pay the outstanding dues of the petitioner by the next date of hearing, the Court would be constrained Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Wed May 04 04:54:19 IST 2016 O/COMP/437/2015 ORDER to pass an order of publication.

9. The order, whether the Official Liquidator attached to this Court would be required to be appointed as the Provisional Liquidator of the respondent­Company would also be made on the next date of hearing.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) sunil Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Wed May 04 04:54:19 IST 2016