Company Ordered to Deposit Rs. 1 Crore; Conditions Set for Petitioner Suit and Withdrawal of Rs. 15.5 Lakh After 12 Weeks.

The Co. is ordered to deposit Rs. 1,00,00,000 within 12 weeks. If the petitioner initiates a suit within 8 weeks post-deposit, the funds will be credited to the suit; otherwise, returned to the Co. Non-compliance will lead to petition admission and advertisement. Petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,000 for advertisement costs within 4 weeks of default and may withdraw Rs. 15,50,000 after 12 weeks. The order is stayed for 12 weeks to permit appeal by the Co.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Service of statutory notices at the registered office of the company.
2. Effect of subsequent statutory notices on the efficacy of the initial notice.
3. Discrepancy between amounts claimed in statutory notices and the petition.
4. Actual amount due and payable by the company.

Summary:

Issue I: Service of Statutory Notices

The petitioner addressed three statutory notices dated 14th October 1999, 8th March 2000, and 21st July 2000. The first notice was served at the Pune and Mahalaxmi offices, the second at the Pune and Khar offices, and the third at the Pune office. The company contended that its registered office was at Mahalaxmi, but the court found this contention unfounded. The registered office remained as per the records of the Registrar of Companies, which was Khar. The court held that a notice returned as unclaimed is presumed to have been served, citing K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762.

Issue II: Effect of Subsequent Notices

Mr. Shah argued that the initial notice dated 14th October 1999 lost its efficacy due to subsequent notices and part payments. The court rejected this argument, stating that there is no doctrine of merger applicable to statutory notices u/s 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. The petition can be based on the first statutory notice despite subsequent notices.

Issue III: Discrepancy in Amounts

Mr. Shah submitted that discrepancies between amounts claimed in statutory notices and the petition render the petition non-maintainable. The court found this submission unfounded, referencing Pfizer Ltd. v. Usan Laboratories P. Ltd. [1985] 57 Comp. Cas. 236 and Tata Finance Ltd. v. Kanoria Sugar & General Mfg. Co. Ltd. 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 6171. The court held that a petition is maintainable as long as the petitioner is a creditor for a sum exceeding the statutory limit.

Issue IV: Actual Amount Due

Mr. Shah claimed that only Rs. 15,00,000 was due, with the balance being adjusted for price differences. The court noted that the company never disputed the petitioner's suggestion of withholding Rs. 15,00,000 as too low. The court concluded that an amount in excess of Rs. 500 is due, thus establishing the petitioner's claim.

Order:

1. The company is directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,00,000 within twelve weeks.
2. If the petitioner files a suit within eight weeks of the deposit, the amount will be transferred to the suit's credit; otherwise, it will be returned to the company.
3. Failure to deposit will result in the petition being admitted and advertised.
4. The petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,000 for advertisement costs within four weeks of default.
5. The petitioner may withdraw Rs. 15,50,000, an admitted amount, after twelve weeks.
6. The order is stayed for twelve weeks to allow the company to appeal.

---