JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Heard Mr. Vahanvati, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners and Mr. J.B. Chinai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the company, viz. Shaheel Bearings Pvt. Ltd.

2.By means of this winding up petition, the petitioners seek to winding up of the company viz. Shaheel Bearings Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that there is due owing and payable by the company to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 22,49.041.10 Ps. inclusive of interest as set out in particulars of claim with further interest at the rate of 22.5% per annum on Rs. 20 lakhs from the date of filing of the petition till payment. The said claim is based on the fact that at the request of the company, the petitioners agreed to place in or about October, 1996 with the company a deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs which the company required for the purpose of its business and in consideration thereof, the company executed in favour of and handed over to the petitioners a post dated cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs bearing No. 853471 dated 16th January, 1997. The petitioners have stated that company agreed to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 22.5% per annum. The said amount was due for repayment on 16th January, 1997. The company in the meantime approached the petitioners for renewing the said deposit since the company was not in a position to repay it on maturity. The petitioner agreed to renew for a further period the said deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs on the company executing a fresh set of security documents. The said deposit, according to the petitioner, was renewed from time to time on the expiry of every agreed period. The petitioners renewed the said deposit for the period of April, 1997 till June, 1997 at the request of the company and the company executed in favour of the petitioners demand promissory note dated 2nd April, 1997 for Rs. 20 lakhs, deposit receipt dated 2nd April, 1997 for Rs. 20 lakhs, a post dated cheque bearing No. 029085 dated 23rd June, 1997 for Rs. 20 lakhs and a letter dated 2nd April, 1997. It is the case of the petitioners that as a security for repayment of the said deposit, the company had offered as a collateral security of the office premises in Mehta Mahal, situate at Mathew Road, Opera House, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioners that the company represented that one Dhirajlal H. Vora, Smt. Ranjan Dhirajlal Vora, Rajesh Dhirajlal Vora, Smt. Sunayana R. Vora, Dhirajlal H. Vora (H.U.F.) and Rajesh D. Vora, (H.U.F.) are contractual tenants in respect of office premises in Mehta Mahal and the company agreed to obtain concurrence of the aforesaid persons to the said premises being given as a collateral security for repayment of the amount due under the said inter-corporate deposit alongwith interest accrued thereon. The company represented to the petitioners that the said persons would obtain necessary permission from the landlords who let out the aforesaid premises to them for the purpose of creating the said security. Accordingly, separate six sets of Agreements of Leave and Licence all dated 5th May, 1997 were executed and handed over to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they never exercised any right of entry nor did the company allowed the petitioners to have any joint possession as stipulated in the said Agreements of Leave Licence. The Leave Licence Agreements, according to the petitioners, were never acted upon and as a result thereof, even the said Leave Licence Agreements did not create any collateral security in favour of the petitioners. By letter dated 2nd April, 1997, the company represented and assured the petitioners that the post dated cheques would be honoured by the bankers of the company on 23rd July, 1997. A notice dated 1st August, 1997 was sent by the Advocate of the petitioners to the company informing them about the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon the company to make arrangement for payment within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. The company sent a reply raising cer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document