Important Point—The winding up order will not be made on a creditor's petition if it would not benefit him or the company's creditors generally. Moreover, if there is opposition to the making of the winding up order by the creditors, the court will consider their wishes and may decline to make winding up order.

1. By this Company Petition (570 of 2016), the petitioner prays that the respondent be would up by and under the directions, supervision and control of this Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and seeks appointment of the Official Liquidator. The Company Application No.455 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner inter-alia praying for various interim reliefs against the respondent. The Company Application No.470 of 2016 is filed by the IDBI Bank Limited seeking its impleadment as a party respondent in Company Petition No.570 of 2016 and in the Company Application No.455 of 2016.

2. On 25th January, 2016, the petitioner sanctioned various facilities / financial assistance in favour of the respondent not exceeding an aggregate amount of Rs.200.00 crores. On 28th January, 2016, the petitioner and the respondent executed Master Facility Agreement. It was provided in the said agreement that the petitioner had sanctioned secured over all limits of Rs.200.00 crores consisting of Fund based limits of Rs.25.00 crores and Non-fund based limits of Rs.200.00 crores. On 28th January, 2016, the respondent executed an Unattested Deed of Hypothecation in favour of the petitioner thereby hypothecating only those Current Assets and Receivables created out of the financial assistance provided by the petitioner under any of the facilities contemplated under the said Master Facility Agreement.

3. On 8th February, 2016, the petitioner disbursed a sum of Rs.20.00 crores under the said Master Facility Agreement. The petitioner issued various letters of credit in accordance with the limits under the said agreement.

4. Vide a letter dated 7th May, 2016, the petitioner reminded the respondent that an amount of Rs.20.00 crores under the short term loan facility was to be repaid by the respondent on or before 7th May, 2016, which the respondent had failed and neglected to repay and discharge its obligations under the said agreement. The petitioner called upon the respondent to make payment of the said amount within a period of two days and threatened to take such steps as may be necessary for enforcing its rights in the event of the default of the respondent.

5. On 10th May, 2016, the letter of credit for US $ 3,814,803.80 became due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner. Vide a letter dated 10th May, 2016, the petitioner informed the respondent that in addition to over due short term facility of Rs.20.00 crores, letter of credit issued for US $ 3,814,803.80 had also matured on 10th May, 2016 which the respondent had failed and neglected to repay to the petitioner. The petitioner called upon the respondent to make the said payment immediately and threatened to take necessary steps for enforcing its rights against the respondent.

6. On 12th May, 2016, the petitioner sent a reminder regarding outstanding amounts payable under the said agreement by the respondent to the petitioner. By the said letter, the respondent was called upon to immediately make payment aggregating to an amount of Rs.45,73,46,664.35 and to provide cash collateral of Rs.145.00 crores for the letters of credit due to mature subsequently. It is the case of the petitioner that on 13th May, 2016, the letter of credit for US $ 3,395,000 became due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner vide its letter dated 13th May, 2016 sent a reminder to the respondent regarding outstanding payments and called upon the respondent to pay the said amount.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16th May, 2016, a letter of credit for US $ 1,426,000 became due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner. By a letter dated 16th May, 2016, the petitioner sent another reminder to the respondent for the outstanding amount.

8. On 16th May, 2016, the respondent replied for the first time to the notices issued by the petitioner and attempted to foist its inability to pay on business compulsions and market volatility. It is the case of the petitioner that by