TDICI LIMITED Vs. NEPTUNE INFLATABLES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the The petitioner-company has filed this petition under section 433 (e) read with section 434 (1) and 439 (1) (b) of the Companies act, 1956, for winding up the respondent company.

(2.) THE petitioner, M/s. TDICI Limited, is a public limited company. THE respondent, M/s. Neptune Inflatables Ltd. is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. THE respondent had received financial assistance from the petitioner-company as conditional loan to the tune of Rs. 59 lakhs and subscription to 30, 000 equity shares of aggregate face value of Rs. 30 lakhs at par. THEy entered into a conditional Loan Agreement on 7. 8. 1991. As on 14. 3. 1996, the respondent had to pay Rs. 29. 30 lakhs and inspite of various demands, the respondent was unable to pay the said debt and so the petitioner has come forward with this petition.

(3.) IT was again argued that though the court cannot presume the inability to pay the debt and there must be concrete evidence to prove the said facts, the various letters of undertaking sent by the respondent to pay the debt, especially, the last letter, dated 9. 4. 1996 would prove that the respondent is unable to pay its debts. Admission of debt voluntarily recorded by the respondent in their letter, would prove their inability to pay the debts. In the instant case, the court need not draw any presumption from the documents when the admission of liability and the inability to pay the debts are obvious from the very reading of the letter, dated 9. 4. 1996. Therefore, the various arguments advanced by the respondent even after the remand by the appellate court, are totally unacceptable. From the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts. Hence, it is a fit case wherein advertisement of the petition can be effected as contemplated under rule 96 read with rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.