9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether winding up order should be passed against the respondent-company Presto Finance Ltd. under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. Analysis: The petitioner, a proprietary firm, invested in the respondent-company by subscribing to shares, but the company failed to issue the shares or honor the buyback agreement. The company issued a bounced cheque for the investment amount, leading the petitioner to issue a statutory notice demanding payment. The respondent admitted the liability but failed to make the payment within the stipulated time. The petitioner alleged that the company made similar assurances to other investors but failed to fulfill its obligations, indicating insolvency. The petitioner also claimed that the company defrauded creditors by issuing bounced cheques. The Stock Exchange suspended trading of the company's shares and warned investors about trading in the company's securities. The Court found that the respondent-company failed to pay its debts, leading to multiple petitions for winding up by various creditors. Despite admitting the debt, the respondent did not make the payment, indicating an inability to pay. The Court noted that the respondent's substratum was lost, justifying the interim order to prevent asset transfers. The Court referred to relevant sections of the Companies Act, emphasizing the inability of the company to pay its debts as a ground for winding up. The Court concluded that there was a valid ground for winding up the respondent company, appointing the Official Liquidator for the process. The petitioner was directed to deposit initial winding-up expenses, and the order was to be communicated to relevant stock exchanges and regulatory authorities. The judgment highlighted the necessity of a deeper probe into the company's affairs, in line with the statutory provisions of the Companies Act.
|
