LAKSHMI STEEL Vs. BBIPL INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 433 (e) and (f) and Sec. 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking to winding up of the Respondent-Company by name M/s. BBIPL Infrastructure (India) Private Limited, having its registered office at No. 19. 5th Cross, Swimming Pool Extension, Maileshwaram, Bangalore-560 003.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is a proprietory concern engaged in the business, interalia, of supplying steel used for construction and fabrication. The Respondent is a Company incorporated on 11.4.2003 with the authorised capital of (Rs. 19,20,00,000.00 divided into 1,92,00,000.00 Equity Shares of (Rs. 10.00 each. The object of the Company is to build, construct, promote and develop layouts and houses etc, as per the Memorandum of Association of the Company. It is stated by the petitioner that pursuant to the purchase orders placed by the respondent, the petitioner has supplied goods to the Respondent-Company and that Respondent-Company is due in a sum of (Rs. 86,99,968.00 and the statutory notice of demand was issued on 1.3.2010 calling upon the respondent to pay the amount with the interest at 24% p.a. However, despite the said notice, the respondent has not paid the amount to the petitioner and hence left with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed this petition for winding up of the Respondent-Company.

(3.) This Court has issued notice to the Respondent and the Respondent had appeared before this Court through Counsel and also has filed Statement of Objections. However, the Counsel for Respondent filed a memo of Retirement and by order dated 15.4.2011, this Court has permitted the Counsel to retire from the case. A Court Notice has been issued to the Respondent which has been served on the Respondent. But the Respondent failed to appear before the Court thereafter or to contest the matter. After hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to admit the case on 25.2.2011 and thereafter a notice was published in "The Times of India" dated 12.10.2011. Despite the publication, the respondent has not chosen to appear before the Court nor to contest the matter.