ROHIT GARG Vs. DELHI AUTOMOBILES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions were filed by the petitioners praying for winding-up of the respondent company on the ground that it has become commercially insolvent. It was alleged in the petitions that the respondent is indebted to the petitioners and it is unable to re-pay its debt. Similar grounds were taken in all the petitions. When the aforesaid petitions came up for hearing, the respondent took up a plea that the respondent would file an agreed re-payment schedule. After several orders were passed by this Court, the principal amount, as stated in the petitions, was paid by the respondent.

(2.) An affidavit is fled by the respondent in the present petitions wherein the respondent has stated that payment of interest at the rate of 6% may be ordered by this Court in view of the fact that the respondent is facing financial crunch and difficulty at present.

(3.) However, my attention is drawn to one of the decisions of this Court in Devinder Kumar Jain v. Polar Forgings and Tools Ltd., reported in 49(1993) DLT 552, wherein this Court has held that it is the duty of the Court to adopt such a course which would result in avoiding multiplicity of litigation. In the said decision this Court further held that when the Company Court is seized of the matter and liability to pay the principal amount is not only admitted by the company but that amount is, in fact, paid in the winding-up proceedings so as to avoid an order for the winding-up, the Company Court will be fully competent to determine whether the creditor is also entitled to interest and direct winding-up of the company on its failure to make payment of such amount.