This company petition is filed to wind up the respondent company and to appoint the Official Liquidator to take possession of all and assets management, books, papers and vouchers of the respondent company.

2. This court issued notice regarding admission to the respondent as early as on 20.01.2009. After notice, the respondent entered appearance, filed counter affidavit and opposed the application. This court by an order dated 29.06.2012, after hearing both parties for admission, dismissed the company petition on the reason that the claim of the petitioner is time barred and an e-mail dated 01.04.2008 sent by the respondent will not amount to acknowledgement of liability. Challenging the said order, the company petitioner filed O.S.A.No.11 of 2013 which came to be disposed of on 30.04.2013, whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside by remitting the matter back to the Company Court to dispose of the company petition on merits and in accordance with law. The Division Bench has also observed that the said e-mail dated 01.04.2008 has been sent by the respondent company acknowledging its debt and such acknowledgement of debt was made before the expiry of the limitation of period. The said order passed by the Division Bench was challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.A (C) No.32408 of 2013, which came to be disposed of as withdrawn. The said order of the Apex Court was made on 24.02.2015. Thereafter, the matter was listed before this court on 12.02.2016. However at the request of both sides, the matter was adjourned to 08.03.2016 finally for hearing the matter for admission. Accordingly, the matter was taken up and heard for admission.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The respondent company was incorporated in 2003 with Registrar of Companies, Tamilnadu under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is an Information Technology company. The respondent company sought the services of the petitioner as a Consultant for them and accordingly, the petitioner was engaged as consultant, by executing a consultancy agreement dated 21.05.2004. The consulting fee agreed to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner was a sum of US$10,460 per month. In addition to this, the respondent company was also liable to pay other incidental expenses. Though the agreement was originally entered for a period of six months, it was later renewed for further period of six months through another agreement dated 19.11.2004. The petitioner experienced problems with the respondent company in respect of his demand towards monthly consideration and reimbursements. The petitioner sent invoice every month for his consulting fees. By March 2005, the respondent was due to the tune of US$ 164,500 to the petitioner. The respondent company avoided in making the payment under the pretext of one or another. The petitioner tendered his resignation on 28.03.2005. The respondent company started negotiation with the petitioner. As a gesture of good faith, the petitioner agreed to settle for an amount of US$ 140,000. As per the settlement, the respondent company executed a promissory note in favour of the petitioner on 31.03.2005. Despite the said fact, the respondent company failed to make the payment. On 22.02.2008, the petitioner sent a legal notice demanding the payment which was acknowledged by the respondent on 29.02.2008. After receiving the said legal notice, the respondent requested the petitioner to settle for an amount of US $ 100,000 to be paid in three or four phases. The respondent indicated that it did not have funds to pay the entire claim due to the dire financial crisis. Even after that proposal made by the respondent, no payment was made to the petitioner. Consequently, statutory notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.08.2008 under section 434 of the Companies Act.

Despite the said notice, the respondent neither replied to the same nor paid the money. Hence, the present company petit