2018 (12) TMI 1302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) No. 416 and 417 of 2016) challenge orders dated 23rd August, 2016 and the third Appeal (Appeal (L) No. 418 of 2016) challenges order dated 22nd August, 2016 passed by the learned Company Judge of this Court dismissing the Company Petitions filed by the respective Appellants for winding up of the respective companies on the ground that the Respondent companies are unable to pay its debts as and when they arise in the usual course of its business. 2. The Appellants are carrying on the business of sale of glass and glass material. The Respondents are also in the same business. The Respondent Companies are stated to have placed orders with the Appellants for supply of the requisite material. It is the case of the Appellants that the Responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issed the Company Petitions. Hence, these Appeals arise from the impugned orders. 3. Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants in all the three Appeals has submitted that there is no dispute as to the Appellants having supplied quantities of glass to the Respondent Companies and for which the invoices had been raised. He has submitted that it is an admitted fact that the cheques were issued to the Appellants by the Respondent Companies. He submits that the cheques upon been presented were dishonoured. He submits that there was a running ledger account and from which it is apparent that sums were due from the Respondent Companies to the Appellants and that the Respondent Companies have failed to meet the dues of ....