1984 (11) TMI 282 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Admission of appeal as a matter of routine
- Existence of a bona fide dispute regarding payment of interest
- Reliability of a footnote entry in invoices
- Consideration of general custom of trade for interest payment
- Filing of a second petition for winding up after dismissal of the earlier petition

Admission of Appeal:
The appellant contended that the appeal should be admitted as a routine matter, but this argument was rejected citing a Division Bench judgment. The court observed that notice of motion was issued, and both parties were heard extensively. The court intended to address all raised points.

Bona Fide Dispute on Interest Payment:
The appellant claimed a bona fide dispute existed on interest payment. However, the court found no merit in this contention. The appellant had paid the principal amount, and the invoices clearly stated the liability to pay interest if not paid by a specified date. The court noted that the appellant did not deny the interest liability previously, and the dispute raised lacked substance.

Reliability of Footnote Entry:
The appellant argued that a footnote entry in the invoices, without the appellant's signature, should not be relied upon for interest payment. While citing a single Bench judgment, the court found this argument irrelevant as other records confirmed the appellant's awareness of the interest obligation. The court concluded that the appellant's plea of non-payment of interest lacked substance.

Consideration of General Custom of Trade:
The court acknowledged the appellant's objection to relying on the general custom of trade for interest payment due to lack of pleadings or proof. Despite this, the court emphasized that this factor did not impact the finding that the appellant was liable to pay interest based on other evidence.

Filing of Second Petition for Winding Up:
The appellant contended that filing a second winding-up petition after the dismissal of the earlier one was improper. The court dismissed this argument, noting that the plea was not raised earlier and that the prior petition was dismissed due to payment, making the second petition valid.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.