TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent that the respondent is unable to pay its debts. He, therefore, contends that this is a fit case for appointment of provisional liquidator and for winding-up of the company. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Niti International Ltd. vs. Shree Sagarmatha Distributors Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 1 Comp. L.J. 335. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petition is merely used as a tool to exert pressure upon the respondent-company. It is contended that there is no urgency to appoint a provisional liquidator. It is pointed out that the respondent is building a residential housing project at Kundli in collaboration with Ansal, a reputed builder, and a part of the project land belongs to it. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions of the respondent. The submissions on merits have all been considered in my order dated 10.07.2013. The question whether the present petitioner can seek to recover the amount advanced by Sarla Fabrics has been considered therein. It was found that there was an amalgamation of Sarla Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. with Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, the latter is competent to initiate proceedings for the winding up of the respondent. The question of limitation was also considered in the aforesaid order and held against the respondent and so was the question as to whether the share application money could be considered to be a debt. Since these issues have already been decided in the aforesaid order, as rightly pointed out on behalf of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent to make any repayment except making assurances which were not honoured. On 05.07.2013 two preliminary objections were raised by the respondent to the maintainability of the company petition one was on the ground that the loan was not given by the present petitioner but was given by Sarla Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. This Court rejected the objection on the ground that the Sarla Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. got amalgamated with the present petitioner and the amalgamation was also sanctioned by this Court. The other objection on the ground that the debt was barred by limitation was also held against the respondent. This Court also noticed that the point of limitation was never raised at any earlier point of time. It was held that the plea of limitation wa....