M.M. Kumar, J.@mdashThis is an appeal filed against order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge directing winding up of the company. On 17.8.2007, this Court while issuing notice of motion had noticed the contention raised by the appellant that post-dated cheques spreading upto 14.10.2008 for making payment of Rs. 3.50 lacs as monthly instalment, as mentioned in the order, were issued under the settlement arrived at between the petitioner-company and respondent No. 1. The payments in pursuance of the aforesaid settlement were being made and, therefore, the Division Bench noticed that no useful purpose would be served if liquidation proceedings were allowed to continue. Accordingly, the liquidation proceedings were stayed. When the matter came up for consideration on 30.10.2008, the Division Bench again noticed that a sum of Rs. 40.75 lacs in terms of the settlement stood paid. It also noticed that some of the instalments could not be paid as the appellant-company was running in some financial crisis. On the request made by the appellant-company, permission was granted to pay the remaining instalments on or before 31.1.2009 along with interest in terms of the settlement. Accordingly, liberty was given to the appellant to pay the balance amount on or before 31.1.2009 in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
2. Thereafter, the matter had come up for further consideration before this Court on two occasions when again, time was sought and was granted for making the payment. The payment could not be made till 25.3.2009 when learned Counsel for the appellant-company requested for one last opportunity to make the payment of balance amount.
3. Mr. Chhibber, learned Counsel for the appellant-company, has stated that payment could not be made and has again requested for further opportunity. The prayer made by the learned Counsel is declined because we do not find any justification for unnecessary delay in making the payment in terms of the settlement reached. The nonpayment of the dues of the respondents itself shows the inability of the appellant to meet its liability. It is sufficient to justify winding up order. Therefore, the company has rightly been ordered to be wound up.
4. As a sequel to the above discussion, the impugned order dated 23.11.2006 directing the winding up of the company is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
