Court dismisses winding up petition, orders refund to respondent with interest and return of title documents.

The court dismissed the petition for winding up the respondent company, citing the respondent's counterclaim against IDBI and the potential for the company's revival. The court found that the respondent's failure to pay the debt was not indicative of an inability to pay debts and attributed the failure to commence business to IDBI's non-disbursement of the loan. The petition was dismissed, and the court directed the refund of Rs.250 lakhs to the respondent with accrued interest, ordering the return of deposited title documents to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Petition for winding up of the respondent company under Sections 433(e) & (f) and 434 read with section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Claim of debt due from the respondent company to the petitioner.
3. Failure of the respondent company to commence its business within one year from incorporation.
4. Admissibility of the petitioner as a party before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
5. Interest payable on the debt amount.
6. Counterclaims by the respondent company against IDBI.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Petition for Winding Up:
The petitioner company filed the petition under Sections 433(e) & (f) and 434 read with section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the winding up of the respondent company on the grounds of failure to pay a sum of Rs.28,99,00,000/- along with interest. The petitioner also argued that it was just and equitable to wind up the respondent company as it had failed to commence business within a year from its incorporation.

2. Claim of Debt:
The petitioner, as an assignee of the debt from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (KMBL), claimed the respondent company owed Rs.28,99,00,000/- along with interest. The debt originated from financial facilities granted by IDBI to the respondent company. The respondent company defaulted on the repayment, leading to a series of legal actions and assignments of the debt. The petitioner confined its debt claim to Rs.250 lakhs based on a One Time Settlement (OTS) offer.

3. Failure to Commence Business:
The petitioner argued that the respondent company should be wound up under Section 433(c) of the Act for failing to commence its business within one year from incorporation. The respondent company was incorporated to set up a 100% export-oriented unit but did not start commercial production.

4. Admissibility Before DRT:
The respondent contested the petitioner's application for substitution as a party before the DRT, arguing that the petitioner was neither a bank nor a financial institution and thus not qualified under section 17(1) read with section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debt due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The DRAT supported this view, ruling that the petitioner could not be substituted in place of a bank.

5. Interest Payable:
The court deliberated on the interest payable on the Rs.250 lakhs. The respondent contended that any interest should only be considered from the date of the court order (24.05.2012) when the petitioner confined its claim to Rs.250 lakhs. The petitioner argued for interest from 27.03.2006, the date of the OTS approval by IDBI. The court found the respondent's contention erroneous and considered the interest from 27.03.2006.

6. Counterclaims by Respondent:
The respondent claimed that IDBI failed to disburse the sanctioned loan, leading to the cessation of its production activities. The respondent filed a counterclaim against IDBI for Rs.7838 lakhs for losses due to non-disbursement of working capital. This counterclaim was still pending adjudication before the DRT.

Judgment:
The court held that the respondent's failure to pay the disputed debt did not indicate an inability to pay its debts under Section 433(e) of the Act. The court also found that the respondent's failure to commence business was due to IDBI's non-disbursement of the loan, and the company was pursuing a counterclaim against IDBI. Given the pending counterclaim and the potential for the company's revival, the court exercised its discretion not to wind up the company under Sections 433(c) and 433(f) of the Act. The petition was dismissed, and the court directed the refund of Rs.250 lakhs to the respondent along with any interest accrued. The title documents deposited by the petitioner were also ordered to be returned.

Conclusion:
The petition for winding up the respondent company was dismissed. The court emphasized that the petitioner's claim was confined to Rs.250 lakhs and interest thereon, and the respondent's counterclaims against IDBI remained unaffected by this order.

---