WIMCO LIMITED Vs. SIDVINK PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought under Sections 433 & 434 of the Indian Companies Act seeking winding up of the respondent-company on the ground that respondent-company has neglected to clear its debt despite statutory notice.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that one Mr. A.N. Prasad was an employee of the petitioner-company and was one of the Directors of the respondent-company and vide lease/licence agreement dated July 22,1987, Flat No. L-27 located on the first floor in Kailash Colony, New Delhi, was taken for the residence of Mr. Prasad from the respondent-company by the petitioner-company for a limited period. Under the terms of the said agreement Rs. 3,00,000.00 were given by the petitioner to the respondent-company as security deposit which was not to bear any interest and was to be refunded on vacation of the flat_Vide term No. 7 in the agreement, Mr. Prasad has also taken a personal liability for refund of the said amount and had agreed that the said amount could be adjusted in his salary and other dues which 261 may be recoverable from the petitioner-company. Admittedly on June 14,1988, on Mr. Prasad resigning from the service of the petitioner-company the possession of the flat was handed back to the respondent-company and the petitioner admittedly became entitled to refund of the said deposit of Rs. 3,00,000.00 from the respondent.

(3.) The case set up by the petitioner is that despite sending of letters dated October 18, 1988 and December 1, 1988 and thereafter service of statutory notice dated May 9, 1990, the respondent-company failed to clear the balance amount of Rs. 93,336.00 and thus, the respondent-company having neglected to pay its debt due to the petitioner is liable to be wound up.