PCI LIMITED Vs PILLER GERMANY GMBH AND CO. KG
Co.App.No. 25/2019 Page 1 of 3
$~S-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.APP. 25/2019, CM APPLs. 721 -22/2021
PCI LIMITED …..Appellant
Through: Mr.Prashant Mehta with Ms.Divita
Vyas and Mr.Abdullah Tanveer,
Advocates.
versus
PILLER GERMANY GMBH AND CO. KG …..Respondents
Through: Mr.Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 15th January, 2021
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE M S. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN , J: (Oral)
C.M.No. 722/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the app lication stands disposed of.
C.M.No.721/2021
1. Present application has been filed by the appellant -applicant seeking
modification of order dated 17th December, 2019 passed by this Court and to
discharge the appellant -applicant from its obligations as recorde d thereunder
in view of the full and final payment of all outstanding dues.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant -applicant states that the appellant –
applicant had paid the first two instalments which was accepted by the
2021:DHC:175-DB Co.App.No. 25/2019 Page 2 of 3
respondents but the appellant -applicant was unable to pay the third and
fourth instalment on time due to covid -19 pandemic and the resultant
economic conditions.
3. He further states that on account the said delay, the respondent s
moved an application before the Company Court who refused to grant the
appellant any additional time for payment, even when the appellant had
offered to pay additional interest to settle the dispute. However, he points
out that the outstanding amount of third and fourth instalments now stands
paid on 31st December, 2020 a nd 4th January, 2021.
4. He states that the appellant is a profit generating company and
financially sound as there is no inability to pay its financial debt a nd it
would not be prudent to wind up a solvent company.
5. Per contra, Mr . Gyanendra Kumar, learned co unsel for the
respondents submits that the petitioner company is not solvent inasmuch as
it has total open charges approximately of Rs.1,185 crores. He also points
out that another winding up petition is pending against the appellant and
third winding up petition had been settled only after dismissal of the appeal
by a Division Bench. He emphasises that there are adverse remarks against
the appellant by its auditors in its balance sheet. Mr. Gyanendra Kumar also
prays for time to file a reply -affidavit to the present application.
6. This Court may mention that, on the last date of hearing, it had
extensively heard the counsel for the parties and had given its mind that
subject to payment of costs, the time for making the payment would be
extended. Betwee n the last date of hearing and today, Mr.Gyanendra Kumar
has placed on record additional documents, which have already been taken
into account while recording the contentions and submissions of the
2021:DHC:175-DB Co.App.No. 25/2019 Page 3 of 3
respondents. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose
will be served by granting time to file a reply -affidavit. Accordingly, the
request for filing a reply -affidavit to the present application is declined.
7. Balancing the competing claims, namely, factum of delay in making
payment of the i nstalments as well as the economic slowdown due to Covid –
19 pandemic , this Court condones the delay in making payments by the
appellant subject to making payment of Rs.20 lakhs as additional costs and
interest to the respondents on or before 31st March, 20 21.
8. In the event, the aforesaid additional amount is paid to the
respondents on or before the stipulated date, the delay in making the
payment shall stand condo ned and the winding up petition shall be deemed
to have been dismissed against the appellant .
9. With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands disposed
of.
10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e -mail.
MANMOHAN, J
ASHA MENON , J
JANUARY 15, 2021
KA
2021:DHC:175-DB