Winding up petition granted against Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. for payment default

The Court granted the petition for winding up filed by L & T Finance Limited against Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. due to the respondent's default in payment despite agreements and statutory notices. The Court found the respondent's defense to be insufficient and raised only to delay payment, noting their insolvency and failure to comply with settlement terms. The respondent was given a three-month period to settle the dispute or make the payment, with the winding up order to be enforced if they failed to do so.

---

---

Issues:
Petition for winding up under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 based on default in payment by the respondent-company.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner-company, L & T Finance Limited, filed a company petition seeking to wind up the respondent-company, Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., due to default in payment despite agreements and statutory notices. The respondent-company had failed to make payments as per the loan agreement and one-time settlement terms, leading to a demand for outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 55,43,233.

2. The petitioner contended that the assets of the respondent-company were insufficient to meet their liabilities, as per the latest Annual Return, and highlighted pending winding up petitions against the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner sought the winding up of the respondent-company and the appointment of an official liquidator.

3. Both parties filed multiple affidavits and rejoinders, reiterating their respective positions. The respondent resisted the claim and objected to the liability, while the petitioner maintained the default in payments by the respondent, as evidenced by the statutory notice and pending liabilities.

4. The Court observed that the respondent-company failed to make payments despite the statutory notice, and their defense was not considered bona fide or genuine. The lack of denial to the amount specified in the demand and the presence of pending winding up petitions against the respondent further supported the case for winding up.

5. It was noted that the respondent-company was insolvent or unable to fulfill the demands of the petitioner, justifying the winding up order under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act. The conduct of the respondent, including resistance to payment demands and failure to comply with settlement terms, indicated a lack of intention to fulfill their dues.

6. The defense raised by the respondent was deemed insufficient and raised only to delay payment or the winding up order. Despite claims of sound financial position and reserves, the respondent's inability to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 55,42,282 was highlighted, leading to the Court's decision to admit the petition for winding up.

7. The Court allowed the respondent a three-month period to settle the dispute or make the payment; failing which, the winding up order would be enforced. The petition was admitted and set to return after three months for further proceedings.

---