Delhi High Court
Harshit Promoters Pvt.Ltd. vs Icri Research Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 25 September, 2018
$~CP-2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 25.09.2018
+ CO.PET. 896/2015
HARSHIT PROMOTERS PVT.LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajiv K Garg, Adv.
versus
ICRI RESEARCH PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sunil Chaudhary, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)
1. This petition is filed under Sections 433(e) and 434(f) of the
Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent Company.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 16.06.2008 in the normal course
of its business, the petitioner provided Inter-Corporate Deposit of Rs.75
lakhs to the respondents subject to interest @ 18% p.a. and repayable within
a period of 90 days. To secure the interest of the petitioner, respondent
Nos.4 & 5 executed a promissory note for Rs.75 lakhs as well as handed
over Post Dated Cheque (PDC) dated 13.09.2008 for the aforesaid amount
of Rs.75 lakhs. The respondents also handed over a cheque dated 14.06.2008
for a sum of Rs.2,46,303/- towards the interest of the aforesaid amount for
the said period after deducting TDS. Prior to the due date, on 10.09.2008 the
respondents again approached the petitioner seeking extension of time for
repayment of the aforesaid amount by two months. A fresh PDC dated
CO.PET. 896/2015 Page 1 of 4
11.09.2008 for the principal amount i.e. Rs.75 lakhs was issued. Another
cheque dated 11.09.2008 for Rs.1,76,203/- for further interest after
deducting TDS was also issued. Again prior to the expiry of the said period,
the respondents approached the petitioner requesting for extension of time
for a period of two months. A fresh cheque for the principal amount of
Rs.75 lakhs dated 11.01.2009 was issued. Similarly, a cheque dated
12.11.2008 towards the interest was also issued. The same exercise was
repeated on 17.01.2009 and Six PDCs were issued towards the principal
amount. Out of the six PDCs, the petitioner was able to encash the cheques
amounting to Rs.30 lakhs only leaving a balance of Rs.45 lakhs which the
respondents had requested that the said PDC be not presented. On
20.06.2009, again the respondents requested the petitioner for extension of
time to pay the balance amount till 30.09.2009, and issued three PDCs dated
30.09.2009 towards the balance amount of Rs. 45 lakhs. Similarly, a cheque
for Rs.1,60,785/- towards the interest was also issued as issued. Again on
02.02.2010 respondents asked for extension of three months for the
repayment of the balance of Rs. 45 lakhs and issued PDCs dated 31.05.2010
towards repayment and interest payable for the balance amount. This
process appears to have gone on subsequently when again the respondents
handed over three PDCs on 30.09.2010 for Rs.45 lakhs which were returned
unpaid. Thus, making the respondents liable to pay an amount of Rs. 45
lakhs along with interest.
3. Reliance is placed on a communication dated 08.08.2012 sent by the
petitioner in response to which the respondents on 04.03.2013 despatched a
Confirmation of Ledger Account showing the outstanding balance as per the
books of accounts of the respondents for the financial years 2009-10, 2010-
CO.PET. 896/2015 Page 2 of 4
11, 2011-12, 2012-13. The last ledger account indicated the balance amount
payable to the petitioner is Rs.63,43,965/- as on 31.03.2013. As the
respondents continued to default, the petitioner sent a legal notice on
14.08.2015. It is pleaded that despite receipt of the legal notice, the
respondents did not respond to the legal notice or pay the dues of the
petitioner.
4. The respondents have filed their reply. In the reply the respondents
have denied that they despatched any balance confirmation to the petitioner.
It has also been stated that the person who has allegedly signed the balance
confirmation, namely, Ms.Shruti Gaur has nothing to do with the respondent
Company. It has also been pleaded that the claim of the petitioner is barred
by limitation. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of
this court in Interactive Media and Communication Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Go Airlines Ltd. in CA No. 10/2013 dated 04.02.2013 to contend that the
claim of the petition is barred by limitation.
5. I may note that today this matter was heard along with Co.Pet.
No.861/2015, titled 'Bon Lon Securities Ltd. v. ICRI Research Pvt. Ltd.,
(2013) 199 DLT 267.
6. The facts and issues which arise in Co.Pet. No.861/2015 are virtually
identical as are in the present case. For the same reasons as stated by me in
previous order in Co.Pet. No.861/2015, the present petition is also admitted.
7. Accordingly, I admit the present petition. 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),
CO.PET. 896/2015 Page 3 of 4
as well as in the Delhi Gazette, at least 14 days prior to the next date of
hearing.
8. Petitioner shall deposit a sum Rs.75,000/- towards cost of the
publication 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. The OL will also seize all the bank accounts of
the respondent.
9. However, in the interest of justice, I suspend the aforesaid order
appointing the OL as the PL for a period of four weeks. In case within four
weeks from today, the respondent were to pay to the petitioner the
outstanding amount payable to the petitioner as reflected in their books of
accounts, namely, of Rs.63,43,965/-, the aforesaid order shall stand revoked.
10. List on 08.02.2019.
JAYANT NATH, J.
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018/s
corrected and released on 12.10.2018.
