- (1.) The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.04.2012, passed by the Learned Company Judge in CP No.55 of 2008 titled Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. M/s Doon Valley Rice Limited. It was held that since another Company Petition No.100 of 2007, instituted against the appellant herein by M/s Viking Associates Limited on the same ground of inability to discharge its debts liability, stood admitted vide order dated 15.09.2010, therefore, the present winding up petition be also admitted for all intents and purposes and it was ordered that it would be followed by publication of admission notice.
(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is based upon the order passed in CP No.100 of 2007 which had been filed against the appellant-Company by M/s Viking Associates Limited. According to the learned counsel, the Company Court had admitted CP No.100 of 2007 on 15.09.2010 and on 25.11.2010 had directed that in view of the order passed in the said petition, the debts of the appellant-Company had been taken into consideration and it would be open to the petitioner therein to publish the admission notice. Thereafter, vide the impugned order, it had been held by the Learned Company Judge that the company petition stood admitted for all intents and purposes and was to be followed by the publication of admission notice. It was argued by Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that CAPP No.26 of 2011, in which order dated 15.09.2010 passed in CP No.100 of 2007 titled M/s Viking Associates Limited Vs. M/s Doon Valley Rice Limited had been assailed, a compromise had been effected and the company petition was ordered to be dismissed. Reference was made to the orders passed in the said appeal on 09.08.2012. Accordingly, it was contended that the order dated 19.04.2012 was also liable to be set aside as there was no independent finding recorded by the Company Judge on merits.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent-Bank, on the other hand, has submitted that from the record, it would be clear that the appellantCompany was unable to pay its debts and, therefore, the order of admission of the company petition was justified and there was no occasion for this Court to interfere in appeal since the admitted debts were not being paid.;