Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Expro India Limited v. M/S Sukam Gravures Limited - COMPANY PETITION No. 21 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5700 (14 November 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.9

Company Petition No.21/2005

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

The amendment application is allowed.  Let paragraph 17 be amended.  

A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that out of total outstanding alleged liability of Rs.1,10,71,670/- towards BOPP film supplied by the petitioner Company to respondent Company, in the reply notice dated 3.3.2005 the respondent Company has admitted in paragraph 12 an amount of Rs.26,19,109.17.  Para 12 is quoted as below:

"That in reply to the contents of para 10 of the aforesaid notice, it is stated that no such amount as has been alleged is outstanding against my clients.  The fact is that as per well audited accounts only an amount of Rs.26,19,109.17p (Rupees Twenty six lakhs, nineteen thousand one hundred nine & paise seventeen only) stands to the credit of your client in the books of my client."

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon subsequent notice given by the petitioner Company,  confining this Company Petition for non-payment of Rs.26,19,109.17 without prejudice to his right to the civil suit, which is pending in Calcutta High Court for the  entire amount with the prayer for a decree for determination of the amount due against the respondent Company.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon M/s. Madhusudan Gordhandas Vs. Madhu Woolen Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 2600, in which the principles for winding up in case of non-payment of price for amount under a contract by respondent Company have been explained.  It was held that where the amount is admitted and no good reason is forthcoming as to why the respondent Company chooses not to pay the admitted amount, prima facie case for winding up is made out.

Similar view were expressed in The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Vs. North India Petro Chemicals Ltd. & Anr., JT (1994) 1 SC 579.

Prima facie I find that the petitioner has made out a case for issuing notice to the respondent Company.

Issue notice to the respondent Company to show cause as to why the Company Petition be not advertised under Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959  and restrain order be not issued against respondent Company for non-payment of admitted dues in para 12 of the petition.  Notices shall be made returnable in six weeks.  Steps within a week.

List on 09.01.2006.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.