VIRAL FILAMENTS LIMITED Vs. INDUSIND BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL admitted. Respondent waives service through their Counsel. By consent, Appeal called out and heard.

(2.) THIS appeal under the Letters Patent impugns an order of the learned Company Judge dated November 23, 2000 by which the respondents petition for winding up the company has been admitted.

(3.) THE facts are that the respondent is a bank which had lent large sums of money of Rs. 5,17,46,623. 96 to the appellant Company. It issued a statutory notice for repayment of the aforesaid amount on 8th March, 2000. Since the company did not pay or secure the large amount due and payable, a petition for winding up of the company was presented under section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, 1956. After the petition was accepted and notice was issued to the company, the company appeared and opposed the petition by an affidavit in reply. The only point urged in the affidavit in reply dated 8th October, 2000 is that it was not commercially insolvent, that it engaged a large number of workers and that winding up of the company would cause hardship to the workers and their families. It was further urged that the respondent had already moved Application No. 1249 of 2000 seeking recovery of certain debts before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "drt") constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "rdb" Act ). Based on this circumstance it was urged in opposition to the petitioner for winding up that the company Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the winding up petition. Hence, it was prayed that the company petition be dismissed summarily. The argument did not find favour with the learned Company Judge who admitted the petition. Hence, this appeal.