AEROTRON LTD. Vs. KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD., (KARNATAKA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Nagao and, senior advocate. Mr. S.V. Rajesh, earlier appearing for the respondent-company, Kingfisher Airlines Lid. (KFA Ltd.), has filed a memo withdrawing his Vakalath from the said case and he submits that lie has no further instruction to appear ant argue on behalf of the respondent-company.

(2.) The said respondent-company is a company against which several winding up petitions have been filed in this court and several of the creditors are before this court seeking the winding up of the said company for failure to pay its admitted debts. Similarly, several winding up petitions have also been filed against its holding company, M/s. United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd., (UBHL), which had also given guarantee to discharge the debts of the respondent-KFA Ltd., and on account of alleged failure to honour and discharge its guarantee obligations, such winding up petitions were filed against UBHL by the consortium of banks and financial institutions led by SBI. But while UBHL is hotly contesting those winding up petitions filed against it, it has not put forth any defence against the present winding up petition or against host of other winding up petitions against its own subsidiary KFA Ltd., though both batch of cases came up for hearing on the same day.

(3.) A detailed admission order was passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court on Dec. 6, 2013 against which, the respondent-company, at that point of time, took the matter before the Division Bench of this court by way of intra-court appeal, namely, O.S.A. No. 20 of 2014 (Kingfisher Airlines Ltd Vs. Aerotron Ltd. [2015] 192 Comp Cas 328 (Kam)) which too, came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this court on July 15, 2015 Admittedly, even thereafter, nothing was apparently paid to any of the creditors by the respondent-company towards its admitted debts and the respondent-company also does not appear to have made any alternative arrangements whatsoever either for payment of any of its admitted dues of the petitioning creditors before this court or even appearance of any other advocate to oppose this winding up petition. Mr. Uday Holla, senior advocate, appearing for the holding company UBHL, to oppose winding up petitions against UBHL also refused to have any instruction to oppose the winding up petition against the respondent-company, KFA Ltd.