Gujarat High Court
Itd Cementation India Limited vs Abg Shipyard Ltd on 19 June, 2017
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
O/COMP/375/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY PETITION NO. 375 of 2016
==========================================================
ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED....Petitioner(s)
Versus
ABG SHIPYARD LTD....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
SUREN B PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.PARTH CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 19/06/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Rashesh Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate assisted by learned advocates Mr. Vimal Patel and Mr. Suren B. Patel and Mr. Parth Contractor, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. By this petition under section 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, the petitioner has prayed for winding up of the company known as ABG Shipyard Ltd.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that during the course of business transaction, the respondent Company did not make any payment and ultimately, the petitioner company issued a statutory notice dated 28.04.2016 to the respondent Company as well as its Directors. According to the said notice, statutory amount of Rs.12,97,941/ along with interest of Rs.8,37,305/ and further Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Fri Jun 30 00:04:37 IST 2017 O/COMP/375/2016 ORDER interest at the rate of 18% as due and payable. It is an admitted position that the notice has been served by the respondent Company. However, the respondent Company has preferred not to give any reply to the same.
4. As far as the present petition is concerned, this Court by an order dated 09.09.2016, had issued notice and the same is served and the respondent Company has not filed any reply to the same.
5. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention to the various orders that have been passed till now in this matter. The record indicates that an attempt was made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to resolve the issue and this Court was apprised about the fact that the compromise/settlement is likely to be worked out. However, ultimately, no compromise has been worked out. Mr. Sanjanwala, further relied upon the newspaper report and has contended that even the RBI directed the banks to file case against loan defaulters wherein the respondent Company is arrayed.
6. As against this, Mr. Parth Contractor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Company has contended that the respondent Company has made all attempts to see that some finance is available and has relied upon the minutes of the meeting held with ICICI Bank. Mr. Contractor Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Fri Jun 30 00:04:37 IST 2017 O/COMP/375/2016 ORDER therefore submitted that the petition may be adjourned to enable the respondent Company to resolve the issue and there is a possibility to revive the Company. Mr. Contractor further contended that as per the meeting of the Steering Committee held on 29.05.2017, the bid has been received and therefore, this Court may adjourn the matter.
7. As against this, Mr. Sanjanwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has selectively paid to some creditors and are likely to dispose of the properties of the Company.
8. Considering the submissions made and considering the fact that the statutory notice was issued way back on 28.04.2016, which has not been even replied by the respondent Company and even the notice of this Court was served in the month of September 2016, no reply is filed in the present petition. On the contrary, the copy of the minutes which is produced on record by Mr. Parth Contractor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Company shows that the respondent Company is in financial doldrums and it is also quite evident from the submission made by Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that even the RBI has directed the Banks to take action against the respondent Company. The ground that the consortium of Bank is considering the bid would not take the case of Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Fri Jun 30 00:04:37 IST 2017 O/COMP/375/2016 ORDER the respondent Company any further. The creditors who are before this Court have been able to prima facie show that the respondent Company is in financial doldrum.
9. In light of the aforesaid facts, the matter requires consideration. Hence, Admit. The order of advertisement is differed till the next date of hearing to give one more opportunity to the respondent. The petition is fixed for hearing on 18.07.2017.
10. Mr. Parth Contractor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that this order be stayed for a period of six weeks to enable the respondent Company to challenge the same. The said request is rejected.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) bjoy Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Fri Jun 30 00:04:37 IST 2017