Creditors who have not served a statutory notice on the company claiming the amount alleged to be due to them cannot oppose the winding up petition.

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.

1. This is a petition under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 .

2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1 namely, Kalpanalok Ltd., is a limited company and respondent No. 2 is one of its directors. The registered office of the company is at Katra Jaimal Singh, Amritsar, in the State of Punjab. However, it is operating mainly from its administrative office at Bombay. The objects of the company, inter alia, are to arrange, produce, acquire, publish, dispose of and distribute films of every description and kind. At present, it is carrying on the business of production, distribution, exploitation and exhibition of motion pictures. It has been borrowing money from time to time for the purpose of their business. It produced some successful pictures.

3. Petitioner No. 1 filed Suit No. 9004 of 1972, in the City Civil Court, Bombay, for the recovery of Rs. 4,346 against the respondents which was decreed against respondent No. 1 for the recovery of Rs. 4,000 plus costs amounting to Rs. 272.47 and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of decree till realisation on the sum of Rs. 4,000, on August 23, 1976. The amount was to be paid by monthly instalments of Rs. 200 each and in the event of default of any two instalments, the whole amount was payable immediately. (Copy of the decree is annex. A).

4. Petitioner No. 1 filed another Suit No. 9028 of 1972, in the City Civil Court, Bombay, for the recovery of Rs. 12,494.10 against the respondents which was Rs. 11,000 only with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of decree till realisation and costs amounting to Rs. 50435, on August 23, 1976. The amount was to be paid by monthly instalments of Rs. 400 each and in the event of default of any two instalments on the due dates, the whole amount was payable immediately. (Copy of the decree is annex. B).

5. Petitioner No. 2 filed Suit No. 9167 of 1972, in the City Civil Court, Bombay, for the recovery of Rs. 8,518.73 against the respondents. The suit was decreed on August 23, 1976, against respondent No. 1 for Rs. 7,500 only with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the decree till realisation and costs amounting to Rs. 405.06. The decretal amount was to be paid by monthly instalments on the due dates, (sic) the whole amount was payable immediately. (Copy of the decree is annex. C).

6. The company did not pay the decretal amounts in spite of repeated requests and demands. Consequently, the petitioners served a statutory notice of demand dated June 28, 1978, on the company (copy annex. D) which was duly received by it and yet the amounts have not been paid.

7. It is alleged that the failure of the company to pay the undisputed decretal amounts is conclusive proof of the fact that it is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 434 of the Companies Act. It is further averred that the company owes an amount of Rs. 10,000 to Smt. Shakuntala Arora, Rs. 4,000 to Smt. Jagjeet Kaur, Rs. 7,500 to Smt. Kanta Anand, Rs. 5,000 to Naval Kishore Goenka, Rs. 5,000 to Ram Gopal Kalya, Rs. 7,500 to Smt. Shankuntala Bhalla, Rs. 5,000 to Smt. Pushpa Malhotra, Rs. 5,000 to Rakesh Bhalla, Rs. 5,000 to Smt. Prem Uppal and Rs. 15,000 to Smt. Shakuntala Jhaver. The company, in addition, is also liable to pay interest to them at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum from the dates on which the debts were taken by it. It is further alleged that the company has practically no assets and has very large debts which it is unable to pay. It is also unable to do any business for lack of funds. Consequently, it is prayed that the company be ordered to be wound up.

8. The petition was contested by the respondents who denied the allegations of the petitioners. However, on September 30, 1982, Mr. Bhagirath Dass made a statement that the respondent-company would pay the decretal amounts of all the three decrees along with costs of