- (1.) The case of the petitioner is thatat the request of the Company, it had advanced loan for a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs for four months to the Company to help the Company tide over financial crisis. This was done through two RTGS dated 30th June, 2012 and 1st August, 2012 for Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that although four months lapsed, the Company failed and neglected to repay the money with agreed interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The petitioner made repeated requests and demands but in vain. Finally the company issued 15 cheques for Rs. 2 lakh each in favour of the petitioner which were presented for payment but were all dishonoured for lack of funds. Five of the cheques were dated 13th April, 2013, five cheques were dated 20th April, 2013 and the remaining five cheques were dated 27th April, 2013.
(2.) In view of the aforesaid the petitioner contends that a sum of Rs. 35,47,890 is due and payable to it by the Company including interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 30th June, 2012 to 31st July, 2013. Accordingly, a notice dated 24th June, 2013 under Section 434 of the Companies Act was served on the Company which was received by the Company on 28th June, 2013. Neither did the Company reply to the said statutory notice nor paid any money to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the Company is unable to pay its debts and should be wound up.
(3.) Appearing for the Company, Mr. Parimal Nath, Learned Counsel fairly conceded that apart from bare denials there is not much in the affidavit-inopposition filed on behalf of the Company. In fact, he did not even once refer to the affidavit-in-opposition. His argument was based on the pleadings filed on behalf of the petitioner. He referred to paragraph 3(i) of the affidavit-inreply filed on behalf of the petitioner which refers to an agreement, copy whereof is annexure A to the affidavit-in-reply. Referring to the said 'Agreement', he submitted that the same was to remain in force for a period of one year and three months and the entire principal amount of Rs. 30 lakhs was to be repaid in 15th monthly installments of Rs. 2 lakhs each and that 15 postdated cheques had accordingly been issued by the Company. He submitted that as on the date of issuance of the statutory notice which was on 24th June, 2013 or on the date of filing of the winding up petition which was on 29th August, 2013, the entire sum of Rs. 30 lakhs did not become due and payable to the petitioner. He submitted that the winding up petition is premature and the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Further, the demand for Rs. 30 lakhs on account of principal in the statutory notice was bad as on that date the entire principal amount had not become payable to the petitioner as per the terms of the 'Loan Agreement'. As such, the statutory notice was bad and consequently the winding up petition must fail. He relied on a decision of a Learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in the case of Parry and Company Limited-vs.-India Machinery Stores (P) Ltd., 1979 49 CompCas 21. With respect, I do not think that the said decision helps the Company's case at all.;