Court orders winding up of companies for insolvency; respondent defaults on payment, legal battle ensues.

The court ordered the winding up of four companies due to their inability to discharge debts and commercial insolvency. Despite a consent order for payment, the respondent defaulted, leading to legal proceedings. The court rejected the respondent's defenses regarding insurance claims and creditor status, citing legal principles on subrogation. The respondent's false statements and non-response to statutory notice supported the decision. The companies' commercial insolvency was evident, leading to the appointment of the Official Liquidator with full powers under the Companies Act, 1956.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Winding up of companies due to inability to discharge debts and commercial insolvency.
2. Clubbing of petitions due to commonality of facts and consent order.
3. Default in payment as per consent order and subsequent legal proceedings.
4. Defenses raised by the respondent regarding insurance claim and creditor status.
5. Legal principles on subrogation and entitlement to proceed against third parties.
6. Respondent's false statements and non-response to statutory notice.
7. Commercial insolvency and inability to discharge debts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Winding up of companies due to inability to discharge debts and commercial insolvency:
The petitions sought the winding up of four companies on the grounds that they were unable to discharge their debts and were commercially insolvent. The companies owed substantial amounts to the petitioner, who provided steel products, and failed to pay despite repeated demands and a statutory notice.

2. Clubbing of petitions due to commonality of facts and consent order:
The four petitions were clubbed together as the companies belonged to the same group and had similar facts, differing only in the amounts owed. A common consent order was passed on 25th June 2014, where the respondent company agreed to pay Rs. 6.07 Crores in 18 installments.

3. Default in payment as per consent order and subsequent legal proceedings:
The respondent company defaulted on the agreed payment schedule, paying only Rs. 12 lakhs out of the Rs. 6.07 Crores. Consequently, the petition was admitted and advertised as per the self-operative order, and the Official Liquidator was appointed as Provisional Liquidator.

4. Defenses raised by the respondent regarding insurance claim and creditor status:
The respondent raised several defenses, including:
- Suppression of the fact that the petitioner received an insurance claim.
- No longer a debt outstanding, making the petitioner not a creditor.
- Petitioner not being a creditor within the meaning of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act.
- The insurance payment went unnoticed when the petitions were filed.
- The respondent should be released from the consent terms.

5. Legal principles on subrogation and entitlement to proceed against third parties:
The court referred to previous judgments, including Morley Vs. Moore and Yorkshire Insurance Vs. Nisbet Shipping Co. Ltd., to establish that receiving payments from an insurance company does not preclude the petitioner from proceeding against the third party. The assured is entitled to recover from the third party, and the insurer may seek recovery from the assured if overpaid.

6. Respondent's false statements and non-response to statutory notice:
The respondent falsely claimed to have learned about the insurance payment only in July/August 2015, despite having knowledge since 2012. The respondent also failed to reply to the statutory notice, leading to a presumption of inability to pay under Section 434 of the Companies Act.

7. Commercial insolvency and inability to discharge debts:
The respondent company did not assert commercial solvency in its affidavit. Evidence showed that the company was declared a non-performing asset and had its bank account frozen. The court concluded that the companies were unable to discharge their debts and were commercially insolvent, warranting winding up.

Judgment:
The court ordered the winding up of the four companies and appointed the Official Liquidator with all powers under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, with instructions for immediate action by the Official Liquidator.

---