Delhi High Court
Hughes Communication India ... vs Toppers Classes Private Limited on 18 September, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Delivered on: 18th September, 2017
+ CO.PET. CO.PET. 281/2015
HUGHES COMMUNICATION
INDIA LIMITED & ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Ankur Mahindroo and Ms.S.
Choudhary and Ms.Aarzoo Arya,
Advocates.
versus
TOPPERS CLASSES PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
1. Between 28.06.2012 to 11.04.2013 the respondent company had
placed certain purchase orders on the petitioner for purchase of KU band
VSAT equipments and for availing bandwidth services.
2. From 29.01.2013 to 10.10.2013 the invoices were raised by the
petitioners on the respondent company in lieu of various KU band VAST
and bandwidth services availed by the respondent company. On
23.10.2013 and on 20.01.2014 emails were sent by the petitioner to the
respondent company informing about the outstanding dues as per its
books of accounts maintained by it and requesting it to clear the same.
Similar emails were also sent on 22.01.2014 and 12.02.2014.
3. On 19.02.2014 a meeting was held between the representatives of
the petitioners and the respondent company to discuss the issue regarding
payment of outstanding dues. In the said meeting the representatives
from the respondent company acknowledged the fact that the payments
are lying outstanding yet they stated that it would not be possible for the
respondent company to make payments of the due amount until the new
services were provided by the petitioners. On 25.02.2014 through an
email the petitioner communicated the proceedings of the meeting held
on 19.02.2014 to the petitioner company and further requested the
respondent to clear the admitted outstanding amount, but to no avail. On
04.03.2015 a final reminder via an email was sent seeking release of such
outstanding amount. On 19.09.2014 a notice was issued by the legal
department of the plaintiff, through an email and ultimately on
06.12.2014 a statutory notice was issued calling upon the respondent
company to make payment of Rs.18,87,693/- along with the interest @
18% per annum within 21 days of receipt of notice. The said notice was
delivered to the respondent company on 09.12.2014 but it failed to reply
the same and did not pay the amount due. Hence this petition was filed.
On 18.05.2015 the notice to show cause was issued to the respondent
company. On 29.09.2016 the learned counsel for the respondent appeared
and sought time to file the reply.
4. However on 12.01.2017 and on 20.04.2017 none appeared on
behalf of the respondent and a status quo order was also passed. The
managing director was also directed to be present. Today none has
appeared on behalf of the respondent company. Even the reply has not
been filed and managing director of the company is also not present. The
conduct of the respondent company in not following the orders of the
court do prove the assertion of the petitioner that the respondent ignored
them too and all its communications requesting the respondent to clear its
dues. Hence there is no reason as to why the company petition should not
be admitted. For the reasons aforesaid the company petition stands
admitted.
5. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as the
Provisional Liquidator. He is directed to take over all the assets, books of
accounts and records of the respondent-company forthwith. The citations
be published in the Delhi editions of the newspapers 'Statesman'
(English) and 'Veer Arjun' (Hindi), as well as in the Delhi Gazette, at
least 14 days prior to the next date of hearing. The cost of publication is
to be borne by the petitioner who shall deposit a sum of `75,000/- with
the Official Liquidator within 2 weeks, subject to any further amounts
that may be called for by the liquidator for this purpose, if required. The
Official Liquidator shall also endeavour to prepare a complete inventory
of all the assets of the respondent-company when the same are taken
over; and the premises in which they are kept shall be sealed by him. At
the same time, he may also seek the assistance of a valuer to value all
assets to facilitate the process of winding up. It will also be open to the
Official Liquidator to seek police help in the discharge of his duties, if he
considers it appropriate to do so. The Official Liquidator to take all
further steps that may be necessary in this regard to protect the premises
and assets of the respondent-company.
6. In addition, the directors of the respondent-company shall file their
statement of affairs within 21 days from today before the Provisional
Liquidator. It is made clear that in the event the said statement of affairs
is not so filed within the specified time, the concerned Directors,
including the Managing Director of the respondent-company, shall
remain personally present in Court on the next date of hearing, in order to
enable this Court to examine them, if required, on that date.
7. Respondent company is directed to file an affidavit before the
Provisional Liquidator hereby appointed, within 2 weeks from today,
furnishing the following details:-
(i) The names and address of the Managing Director and
Directors of the respondent-company.
(ii) Latest address of the registered office and corporate office of
the Respondent Company.
(iii) The location of the books of accounts of the respondent-
company.
(iv) The details of the movable and immovable assets of the
company and the details of the Bank account operated in the
name of the respondent company and statement of account
thereof.
The respondent-company, as well its directors, are restrained
from alienating, encumbering, or otherwise parting with possession
of the assets of the respondent-company without the leave of this
Court. The Official Liquidator shall file a compliance report before
the next date of hearing.
A copy of the petition along with annexures be supplied to
the Official Liquidator.
8. List on 09.03.2018.
YOGESH KHANNA, J
SEPTEMBER 18, 2017
DU
