K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel of both sides on admission.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed before me that the petitioner had advanced a sum of Rs. 25,00. 000. 00 to the respondent/company on interest at the rate of 30 per cent per annum. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent/ company had paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000. 00through cheque dated 30-12-1995 and Rs-62,151/- through cheque against interest accrued upto 15-1-1996. The respondent/ company has also deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 in the Bank account of the applicant on 19-4-1996. The petitioner on 15-4-1996 issued a legal notice to the respondent/company demanding a sum of Rs. 21,80,333. 00. After receiving this letter, the respondent/company sent a reply admitting the claim of the applicant, but alleging that it had a feeling that the applicant was interested in settling the matter amicably but had resorted to legal route.

( 3 ) THE defence of the respondent/ company is that it has submitted a schedule of repayment of the amount due to be paid by it through letter dated 5-4-1996. The petitioner through its letter dated 6-4-1996 wanted the respondent/company to provide more reasonable schedule of payments and arrange for cheques for the revised schedule and had asked the respondent/ company through this letter to agree to its proposal to enable it to settle the matter amicably and at the earliest. It appears that no reply was sent to this letter dated 6-4-1996 by the respondent/company.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel of the respondent/company argues that the applicant has virtually agreed for rescheduling the repayment of debts, but wanted the payments to be made with a more reasonable schedule of payments before it could be considered, but the applicant has served a legal notice followed by this application for winding up the respondent/company. It is also argued that due to financial crisis, the respondent/company could not repay the debt in time and he has also offered the learned Counsel of the applicant for now rescheduling the payment of the debts.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel of the applicant has argued that even assuming that the applicant had agreed for repayment of the dues as shown in the letter dated 5-4-1996 of the respondent/company, such instalments have not been paid even today and the proposal for rescheduling the payment of debts is now not acceptable to the applicant.

( 6 ) FROM what is stated above, it is evident that the applicant had not agreed to the mode of repayment suggested by the respondent/company through its letter dated 54-1996. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent/company has agreed to accept the amount due to be recovered in instalments. The liability is not denied. The amount has not been paid in spite of statutory notice duly served on the respondent/company. Financial crisis in the respondent/company does not appear to be a ground for throwing the application for winding up the respondent/ company.

( 7 ) WHERE the debt is undisputed, but the company persistently neglects to pay, a winding up petition is maintainable even if the company is solvent. Where the company admits its liability but has neglected to pay its debt, a presumption should be drawn that the company has become commercially insolvent.

( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I reach the conclusion that the respondent/company owes an amount of about Rs. 18,00,000/-besidcs agreed interest and it has failed to repay the same in spite of statutory notice. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that it is unable to pay the debts, particularly in the light of the fact that the instalments, as shown in the letter dated 5-4-1996, could not be paid by it till today.

( 9 ) IN the case of Kanchanganga Chemical Industries v. Mysore Chipboards Ltd, (1998) 91 CC 646, it is held that to raise a presumption of the Company s inability to pay its debt, it is not enough to merely show that the company has omitted to pay the debts despite servi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document