REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SICOM LIMITED Appellant

V/S

Entertainment World Developers Pvt Ltd Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CARDIFF PRESERVED COAL AND COKE COMPANY V. NORTON [REFERRED TO]
ALLEN V. FLOOD [REFERRED TO]
QUINN V. LEATHEM [REFERRED TO]
LONDON GRAVING DOCK CO. LTD. V. HORTON [REFERRED TO]
HOME OFFICE V. DORSET YACHT CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SHEPHERD HOMES LTD. V. SANDHAM (NO. 2) [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSUDAN GORDHANDAS AND CO. V. MADHU WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD V. HERRINGTON [REFERRED TO]
K T M T M ABDUL KAYOOM VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSUDAN GORDHANDAS AND COMPANY VS. MADHU WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
AMBICA QUARRY WORKS AMBALAL MANIBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK VS. CANARA BANK [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA SINGH VS. SAVITRI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. N R VAIRAMANI [REFERRED TO]
MEDIQUAP SYSTEMS P LTD VS. PROXIMA MEDICAL SYSTEM G M B H [REFERRED TO]
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGHATANA K V MUMBAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
OFU LYNX LTD VS. SIMON CARVES INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
PFIZER LTD VS. USAN LABORATORIES P LTD [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LTD VS. ARCEE STEELS P LTD [REFERRED TO]
DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LTD VS. INDIAN SEAMLESS STEELS AND ALLOYS LTD [REFERRED TO]
TATA FINANCE LIMITED VS. KANORIA SUGAR AND GENERAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LTD. VS. RIM AND ACCESSORIES (P) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
QSS INVESTORS (P.) LTD. VS. ALLIED FIBRES LTD. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Company Petition has been filed seeking to wind up the Respondent Company-Entertainment World Developers Pvt Ltd on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Company is indebted to it in the sum of Rs.52.80 Crores and Rs. 23.33 Crores (aggregating to Rs.76.13 Crores) as on 12th December, 2012. After the Petition was filed, an affidavit-in-reply opposing the Petition was tendered to the Court on behalf of the Respondent Company. Thereafter, a further affidavit dated 2nd February, 2016 has been also filed on behalf of the Petitioner revising their claim. In the further affidavit it is mentioned that as on 31st July, 2015, a sum of Rs. 58.24 Crores and Rs. 36.13 Crores (aggregating to Rs.94.37 Crores) is due and payable by the Respondent Company to the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that these amounts have not been paid and/or secured to the satisfaction of the Petitioner and therefore the present Company Petition.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that, the Petitioner had sanctioned financial assistance to one Nanded Treasure Bazaar Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower No.1") and Treasure World Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower No.2") from time to time and as per the terms and conditions of the respective loan documents. As far as this Petition is concerned, the Respondent Company is sued in its capacity as a Guarantor to the loans given by the Petitioner to the said Borrower Nos.1 and 2. THE TERM LOAN OF RS.35 CRORES SANCTIONED AND DISBURSED TO BORROWER NO.1 :-

(3.) On 30th July, 2009, the Petitioner sanctioned a Term Loan for Rs. 35 Crores to Borrower No.1. This loan was disbursed on 28th August, 2009.

Click here to view full judgment.

SICOM LIMITED Vs. ENTERTAINMENT WORLD DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address