High CourtsSingle Bench

Yes Bank Ltd. vs M/s. International Electron Devices Ltd.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 12 August 2013 · Citation: (2013) 8 AD 50

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.V. Easwar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Companies Act, 1956 — Section 433(e), 434(1)(a), 439, 454 · Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 18
CASE NUMBER
Co. Petition 608 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 758 words

R.V. Easwar, J.—This is a petition filed by YES Bank Ltd. u/s 433(e)/434(1)(a)/439 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company for non-payment of an amount of Rs. 11,77,65,057.22 paise. The amount represents the loan advanced by the petitioner to the respondent, including interest. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent but it could not be served since the office of the respondent was shut down and no other address was available. Substituted service was ordered. The petitioner accordingly got the respondent served through publication in ''The Times of India'' (English) and ''Hindustan'' (Hindi). Notice was also got served by affixation at the registered office of the respondent. Thereafter, it appears that another publication was carried out in ''The Times of India'' dated 30.06.2013. Despite the publication of the notices, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent nor any reply was filed. The petition was, therefore, taken up for hearing today in the absence of the respondent.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the balance sheet of the respondent company as on 31.03.2011 in which an amount of Rs. 1,240 lakhs has been shown as rupee loan from the petitioner-bank, by way of Note No. 2A of Schedule C. This serves as an acknowledgement of the debt as on 31.03.2011 and thus the debt is not barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Annexure P-30, which is a letter dated 29.07.2011 written by the respondent to the petitioner, which is as follows: -

To,

YES Bank Limited,

D-12, South Extension, Part-II,

New Delhi-110049

Dear Sir(s)

Re: Credit Facility (s) granted to us

We do hereby confirm, acknowledge and admit the correctness of the outstanding amount due to the Bank in respect of following facilities:

We hereby further confirm that the documents executed by us from time to time in respect of above mentioned facilities are valid and binding on us.

We hereby further state that this letter may be treated as acknowledgement of debt from us as per Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963.

Yours sincerely,

For International Electron Devices Ltd.

Sd/-

Managing Director

3.

Thus both the balance sheet as on 31.03.2011 and the letter dated 29.07.2011 contain an acknowledgement and an admission of the debt due to the petitioner bank. The bank issued a statutory notice dated 26.09.2012 (Annexure A-33) which contains a demand of the amount of Rs. 11,77,65,057.22 paise from the respondent and asking it to pay the said amount within the stipulated period as per Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. The notice was served on the respondent as seen from the copies of the acknowledgements from the courier agency as well as the Indian Post. There was no reply by the respondent company to the aforesaid notice.

4.

In the aforesaid facts, I am satisfied that the respondent company has neglected to pay the debt due to the petitioner bank. The debt is admitted and not disputed.

5.

The OL attached to this Court is appointed as the Provisional Liquidator (''PL'') of the Respondent. The OL is directed to take over all the assets, books of accounts and records of the Respondent forthwith. The OL shall also prepare a complete inventory of all the assets of the Respondent before sealing the premises in which they are kept. He may also seek the assistance of a valuer to value the assets. He is permitted to take the assistance of the local police authorities, if required.

6.

Publication of the citation of the petition be effected in the Official Gazette, ''The Statesman'' (English) and ''Jansatta'' (Hindi) in terms of Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (''Rules''). The cost of publication shall be borne by the Petitioner.

7.

The Directors of the Respondent are directed to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rule 130 of the Rules and furnish to the OL a statement of affairs in the prescribed form verified by an affidavit within a period of 21 days from today. They will also file affidavits in this Court, with advance copies to the OL, within four weeks setting out the details of all the assets, both movable and immovable, of the Respondent company and enclose therewith the balance sheets, profit and loss accounts and copies of the statements of all the bank accounts for the last three years. A report be filed by the OL before the next date of hearing.