KRISNA MINERALS Vs. PRADHAN INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a winding up petition. Mr. Baug, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, a sum of Rs.1,96,71,136.00remains unpaid to his client by the company. The debt is admitted. His client caused to be issued statutory notice dtd. 29/8/2013, copy of which is annexure-4. Upon receipt of the notice, the company did not reply but gave a hand written undertaking dtd. 8/9/2013 issued by the Managing Director and signed by other persons in management of the company. He submits, the company has been unable to pay the admitted debt owing to his client. It should be wound up.

(2.) Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of the company and submits, the winding up petition is not maintainable. He refers to averments in paragraph-16 of the petition for his above submission. Paragraph-16 is reproduced below.

(3.) Mr. Patnaik submits further, petitioner had filed a suit on same claim. Mr. Baug responds, the suit was withdrawn. On query from Court he submits, summon in suit was not issued.