Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(3) Besides this petition filed by M/s.Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, there are eleven other petitions filed against the company by various other creditors who have also complied with the requirement of notice under Section 433 of the Companies Act and the amount had not been paid in spite of the receipt of notice by the company. Details of other petitions are :- C.P. No. Name of Petitioner Principal amount Rate of interest 222/96 Dcm Daewoo Ltd. 1,50,00,000.00 22% 2,00,00,000.00 27% 160/96 Goetze (India) Ltd. 1,00,00,000.00 22% 116/96 Escorts Finance & 1,40,00,000.00 23.5% Investment Ltd. 1,00,00,000.00 21% 50,00,000.00 22% 117/96 Escorts Limited 60,00,000.00 23% 3/96 Milestone Finance 50,00,000.00 20.5% & Leasing (P) Ltd. 93/96 Bajaj Auto Ltd. 50,00,000.00 20% 237/95 Parle Exports 1,00,00,000.00 20% 214/96 Concept Communication 2,78,18,272.00 16% LTD. 237/96 Sundaram Finance 2,00,00,000.00 277/96 Neeru Arts 47,63,815.80 146/95 Srf Finance 50,00,000.00 (4) On receipt of notice from this Court to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted, the company has filed its reply. While the company has not denied its liability to pay the amount for non-payment of which the present petitions have been filed, the stand taken by the respondent company is that it is commercially solvent and is able to pay its debts. According to the company, the existing realisable assets of the company are sufficient to meet all liabilities. The respondent is alleged to have assets, market value of which is alleged to be about Rs.200 crores. It is stated in the reply that the loan was taken by the company for its working capital requirements in the usual course of business and the respondent was expecting at that time to raise funds from the capital market to meet its working capital requirements for its hotel projects and the money received through the public and the right issues was also to be used for repaying of short term loans and bridge loans. It is stated that the petitioner was always aware that the loan being paid to the company would have been repaid only from the money received from the public and the right issue which could not be effected due to certain reasons as the minimum subscription stipulated in the prospectus in the public issue could not be legally achieved. It is alleged that the parties had orally agreed that the loan would be rolled over for one year on the same terms and conditions and the company was willing to execute all necessary documents to that effect. It is also stated that the company has about 50,000 shareholders and their interest would be jeopardised and prejudiced if the company is wound up.