1982 (10) TMI 162 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Petition under sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956; Non-payment of decretal amounts by the company; Allegations of inability to pay debts; Contestation of petition by respondents; Interpretation of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 regarding notice to appear at the hearing of the petition.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition under sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, where the petitioner sought winding up of a company due to non-payment of decretal amounts despite repeated requests and demands. The company was alleged to be unable to pay its debts and had outstanding dues to various creditors. The respondents contested the petition, but subsequently, admitted their liability to pay the decretal amounts and agreed to settle by a specified date. The court considered the arguments regarding the interpretation of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, specifically rule 34, which governs the notice to be given by persons intending to appear at the hearing of a petition.

The court analyzed the rule and the form prescribed under it, emphasizing that a notice under the rule is served by a person indicating intention to appear at the hearing of the petition to support or oppose it. The judgment clarified that the "hearing of the petition" refers to the date when the petition is presented before the court after being advertised as per the Rules. Referring to precedents like National Conduits (P) Ltd. v. S. S. Arora and Bipla Chemical Industries v. Shree Keshariya Investment Ltd., the court highlighted that a winding-up petition cannot be heard before being advertised, and rule 34 is intended for creditors joining the proceedings to support or oppose the winding-up petition.

The court rejected the contention that other creditors could continue the petition even if the decretal amounts were paid by the company. It noted that none of the alleged creditors had served a statutory notice on the company for the amounts claimed due to them. The judgment concluded that if the respondents failed to pay the decretal amounts by the specified date, the petition would be advertised. However, if the payments were made as agreed, the petition would stand dismissed. The costs of the petition were assessed, and the matter was adjourned to verify the payment status by the given deadline.