TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s. Murli Industries Limited by receiving fresh certificate of incorporation consequent upon change of name. 4. By order dated 30.9.2011, notice was issued to the respondent company making the same returnable on 11.11.2011. The notice was duly served on the respondent company. The respondent filed reply to the petition on 10.1.2012 raising various objections. 5. Perusal of the record shows that it was submitted before this Court at the instance of the respondent that certain proceeding is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the BIFR' for the sake of brevity). It seems that time was sought for on 11.4.2014 and this Court adjourned the matter till 21.4.2014 as a last ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the respondent, the petitions would be heard on its merits." Today also, none appears for the respondent. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a reputed company engaged in manufacture and supply of paper, board, pulp and in many by products of manufacturing paper. It is in the said business for last 25 years. The petitioner has been supplying the waste paper (printers off cuts) in the country as well as to the establishments situated outside India. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its office at Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent company is engaged in manufacturing of newsprint paper, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has not denied the documents referred to above. On the basis of above submissions, Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel submitted that the respondent company is not financially viable to pay its debts. 8. The petitioner further submits that in the meeting dated 9.2.2011, the respondent company admitted to pay the outstanding amount. It is the submission of the petitioner that the alleged counter claim raised by the respondent company was denied in clear and specific terms by the petitioner by way of reply dated 14.2.2011. 9. It is further submission of the petitioner that as the respondent is unable pay its debts and in spite of various communications forwarded to the respondent company and in spite of the respondent admitting the outstandin....