TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Winding Up Petition Granted, Official Liquidator Appointed for Company Assets</h1> <h3>Harshit Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus ICRI Research Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.</h3> The petition seeking winding up of the respondent Company under Sections 433(e) and 434(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 was admitted by the court. The ... Winding up petition - Inter-Corporate Deposit outstanding - Held that:- Referring to communication dated 08.08.2012 sent by the petitioner in response to which the respondents on 04.03.2013 despatched a Confirmation of Ledger Account showing the outstanding balance as per the books of accounts of the respondents for the financial years 2009-10, 201011, 2011-12, 2012-13. The last ledger account indicated the balance amount payable to the petitioner is ₹ 63,43,965/- as on 31.03.2013. As the respondents continued to default, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 14.08.2015. Accordingly, I admit the present petition. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. He is directed to take over all the assets, books of accounts and records of the respondent-company forthwith. The citations be published in the Delhi editions of the newspapers ‘Statesman’ (English) and ‘Veer Arjun’ (Hindi), as well as in the Delhi Gazette, at least 14 days prior to the next date of hearing. Issues:Petition filed under Sections 433(e) and 434(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of respondent Company.Analysis:The petitioner provided an Inter-Corporate Deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs to the respondents with interest and repayment terms. Despite multiple extensions requested by the respondents, a significant balance remained unpaid. The petitioner sent a legal notice in 2015, but the respondents did not respond or pay the dues, leading to the filing of the petition. The respondents denied sending any balance confirmation and claimed the petitioner's claim was barred by limitation, citing a relevant court judgment.Analysis:The court considered a similar case with virtually identical facts and issues, where the petition was admitted. In the present case, the petition was also admitted, and the Official Liquidator was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. The Official Liquidator was directed to take over all assets, books of accounts, and records of the respondent-company. Citations were to be published in newspapers and the Delhi Gazette. The petitioner was required to deposit a sum towards publication costs with the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator was instructed to prepare an inventory of assets, seal the premises, value assets, and seize bank accounts. The court suspended the order appointing the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator for four weeks, revocable if the outstanding amount was paid within that period.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the key events, arguments, court decisions, and directives provided in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
