Important Point - The respondent is heavily indebted and is unable to pay its debts.

The petitioner in Company Petition No.496 of 2014, Company Petition No.497 of 2014 and Company Petition No.498 of 2014 have prayed for winding up of the respondent on the ground that the respondent is unable to pay its debts. Company Application (L) No.890 of 2015, Company Application (L) No.886 of 2015 and Company Application (L) No.885 of 2015 are filed by the applicants inter alia praying for impleadment as party respondent in the aforesaid company petitions respectively.

2. The facts of all the three matters being identical were heard together for the purpose of considering admission of these petitions and are decided by a common order.

3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding whether these petitions shall be admitted or not are as under :-

4. Insofar as Company Petition No.496 of 2014 is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner gave loan to the respondent on 19th March, 2012 in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- by a cheque. The said amount was repayable by the respondent with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent vide its letter dated 16th December, 2012 acknowledged its liability to the petitioner in the said sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and assured repayment of the said loan with interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereof. The respondent handed over to the petitioner a post dated cheque dated 16th March, 2013 for Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner and also handed over another cheque dated 15th December, 2012 for Rs.1,35,000/- towards interest component on the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner.

5. On 4th April, 2013 the petitioner deposited the said postdated cheque with his bankers viz. Citi Bank and the said cheque was dishonoured with a remark 'Exceeds Arrangement'. The petitioner has already filed a separate criminal proceedings against the respondent and the same are pending.

6. The petitioner issued a notice through his advocates' letter dated 3rd October, 2013 and called upon the respondent to clear the outstanding amount with interest. There was no payment made by the respondent in response to the said notice.

7. The petitioner thereafter through its advocates' letter issued a statutory notice dated 22nd October, 2013 under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 calling upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest. The said notice was served at the registered office of the respondent. The respondent replied to the said notice in the month of October 2013 (Ex.D to the petition) and vaguely denied the claims. It was conveyed to the petitioner that the respondent was facing a temporary liquidity crunch and was therefore unable to make certain repayment obligations towards its lenders. The company was most likely to overcome its present liquidity crunch and meet its payment obligations in the near future. The respondent informed that the respondent had approached the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) Cell of the Reserve Bank of India to restructure its debts and improve the overall financial help of the respondent.

8. In the said reply, the respondent alleged that Mr. Amitabh Parekh, Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent had issued cheques to various parties with an express understanding not to deposit the same without his consent and permission to which the petitioner had agreed at the time of advancing the alleged loan. It was alleged that the subject cheques were comfort cheques and were never meant for repayment of alleged loan. It was contended that the subject cheques were without any mandate as the drawer of the cheque had expired before presenting the cheques for payment in the bank. According to the petitioner in the Company Petition No.496 of 2014, the respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.54,63,635/- with further interest thereon from 20th December, 2013 at the rate of 18% per annum till payment.

9. Insofar as Company Petition No.497 of 2014 is concerned, the petitioner had granted a loan in the respon