K PADMASREE Vs. LOTUS ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition has been moved in terms of Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the companies Act, 1956, seeking for winding up of M/s. Lotus Aluminium Private limited and for appointing the Official Liquidator as its Liquidator.

(2.) THE Respondent Company was incorporated under the Provisions of the Indian companies Act, on 14-10-1999 with it's registered office at Secunderabad, Andhra pradesh. It was established for carrying on business of manufacture, import or for otherwise dealing with Aluminium, Brass, Copper and all non-ferrous metals and their alloys. The authorized share capital of the Company was Rs. 5. 00 lacs and the issued, subscribed and paid up share capital as of 31-03-2003, was standing at Rs. 1. 00 lac. However, more than Rs. 82. 88 lacs is shown as received against allotment of shares. The Petitioner has asserted that at the request of the Respondent Company, between September 1999 to March 2002 she paid a sum of rs. 3,57,000/- on various dates, through cheques issued on Canara Bank and ING vysya Bank. The Respondent Company has neither allotted the shares nor did return the money to the Petitioner. It is further stated that after a good deal of persuasion, the Respondent Company issued a cheque, bearing No. 368162 dated 15-04-2004, drawn in a sum of Rs. 3,57,000/- on an account maintained by it with m/s. Manasa Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, towards refund of the monies received from the Petitioner. The Petitioner further asserted that the Company requested time for presentation of the said cheque and, at long last, when the cheque was presented, the same has been returned by its banker with an endorsement that the Directors signature is deferring with its records. It is, therefore, asserted by the Petitioner that a deliberate ploy has been used for avoiding refund of monies for which the Petitioner is entitled to. That action has resulted in criminal case being launched in C. C. No. 1328 of 2004 in Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The request made by the Petitioner for refund of the money having not produced the desired result, the Petitioner has put the Respondent Company on notice on 16-04-2005. The notice was delivered at the registered office of the Respondent Company on 05-05-2005, while the same was delivered at the factory address on 23-04-2005 itself. There was no response from the Respondent and hence, the present Petition has been taken out asserting that the Respondent Company is not in a position to liquidate its liabilities as its net worth has been eroded beyond redemption and it has not started commercial production, as yet.

(3.) THE Respondent Company, through one of its Directors Sri V. Prem Sagar, contested the above Petition and filed the counter affidavit.