Hughes Communication India Limited & Ors vs Toppers Classes Private Limited

Yogesh Khanna, J

Between 28.06.2012 to 11.04.2013 the respondent company had placed certain purchase orders on the petitioner for purchase of KU band VSAT

equipments and for availing bandwidth services.

From 29.01.2013 to 10.10.2013 the invoices were raised by the petitioners on the respondent company in lieu of various KU band VAST and

bandwidth services availed by the respondent company. On 23.10.2013 and on 20.01.2014 emails were sent by the petitioner to the respondent

company informing about the outstanding dues as per its books of accounts maintained by it and requesting it to clear the same.

Similar emails were also sent on 22.01.2014 and 12.02.2014.

On 19.02.2014 a meeting was held between the representatives of the petitioners and the respondent company to discuss the issue regarding

payment of outstanding dues. In the said meeting the representatives from the respondent company acknowledged the fact that the payments are lying

outstanding yet they stated that it would not be possible for the respondent company to make payments of the due amount until the new services were

provided by the petitioners. On 25.02.2014 through an email the petitioner communicated the proceedings of the meeting held on 19.02.2014 to the

petitioner company and further requested the respondent to clear the admitted outstanding amount, but to no avail. On 04.03.2015 a final reminder via

an email was sent seeking release of such outstanding amount. On 19.09.2014 a notice was issued by the legal department of the plaintiff, through an

email and ultimately on 06.12.2014 a statutory notice was issued calling upon the respondent company to make payment of Rs.18,87,693/- along with

the interest @ 18% per annum within 21 days of receipt of notice. The said notice was delivered to the respondent company on 09.12.2014 but it

failed to reply the same and did not pay the amount due. Hence this petition was filed. On 18.05.2015 the notice to show cause was issued to the

respondent company. On 29.09.2016 the learned counsel for the respondent appeared and sought time to file the reply.

However on 12.01.2017 and on 20.04.2017 none appeared on behalf of the respondent and a status quo order was also passed. The managing

director was also directed to be present. Today none has appeared on behalf of the respondent company. Even the reply has not been filed and

managing director of the company is also not present. The conduct of the respondent company in not following the orders of the court do prove the

assertion of the petitioner that the respondent ignored them too and all its communications requesting the respondent to clear its dues. Hence there is

no reason as to why the company petition should not be admitted. For the reasons aforesaid the company petition stands admitted.

The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. He is directed to take over all the assets, books of accounts

and records of the respondent-company forthwith. The citations be published in the Delhi editions of the newspapers ‘Statesman’ (English) and

‘Veer Arjun’ (Hindi), as well as in the Delhi Gazette, at least 14 days prior to the next date of hearing. The cost of publication is to be borne by

the petitioner who shall deposit a sum of `75,000/- with the Official Liquidator within 2 weeks, subject to any further amounts that may be called for by

the liquidator for this purpose, if required. The Official Liquidator shall also endeavour to prepare a complete inventory of all the assets of the

respondent-company when the same are taken over; and the premises in which they are kept shall be sealed by him. At the same time, he may also

seek the assistance of a valuer to value all assets to facilitate the process of winding up. It will also be open to the Official Liquidator to seek police

help in the discharge of his duties, if he considers it appropriate to do so. The Official Liquidator to take all further steps that may be necessary in this

regard to protect the premises and assets of the respondent-company.

In addition, the directors of the respondent-company shall file their statement of affairs within 21 days from today before the Provisional Liquidator.

It is made clear that in the event the said statement of affairs is not so filed within the specified time, the concerned Directors, including the Managing

Director of the respondent-company, shall remain personally present in Court on the next date of hearing, in order to enable this Court to examine

them, if required, on that date.

Respondent company is directed to file an affidavit before the Provisional Liquidator hereby appointed, within 2 weeks from today, furnishing the

following details:-

(i) The names and address of the Managing Director and Directors of the respondent-company.

(ii) Latest address of the registered office and corporate office of the Respondent Company.

(iii) The location of the books of accounts of the respondent-company.

(iv) The details of the movable and immovable assets of the company and the details of the Bank account operated in the name of the respondent

company and statement of account thereof.

The respondent-company, as well its directors, are restrained from alienating, encumbering, or otherwise parting with possession of the assets of the

respondent-company without the leave of this Court. The Official Liquidator shall file a compliance report before the next date of hearing.

A copy of the petition along with annexures be supplied to the Official Liquidator.

List on 09.03.2018.