1997 (3) TMI 454 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Petition for winding up the company under Section 433 of the Companies Act.
2. Company's inability to pay its debts.
3. Discretionary power of the court under Section 433.
4. Bona fide disputes regarding the debt.
5. Commercial solvency of the company.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Petition for Winding Up the Company under Section 433 of the Companies Act:
The petitioner, Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, filed a petition for winding up the respondent company, M.S. Shoes East (I) Limited, under Section 433 of the Companies Act, on the grounds of the company's inability to pay its debts. The petitioner had granted a loan of Rs. 2,00,00,000 to the company, which was not repaid despite repeated demands and a statutory notice under Section 434(1)(a).

2. Company's Inability to Pay its Debts:
The respondent company admitted its liability to pay the amount claimed by the petitioner but argued that it was commercially solvent and capable of meeting its liabilities. Despite this, the company failed to pay the amounts due, even after providing post-dated cheques and an undertaking to the court to repay in installments. The company's cheques were dishonored, and no payments were made as per the agreed schedule. This led to the filing of multiple petitions by various creditors, totaling over Rs. 17 crores in principal amounts.

3. Discretionary Power of the Court under Section 433:
The court acknowledged that the power to wind up a company under Section 433 is discretionary. The court referred to the judgment in Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. v. North India Petro Chemical Ltd. [1994] 79 Comp Cas 835 (SC), which stated that an order under Section 433(e) is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously. The court emphasized that the machinery for winding up should not be used merely to realize debts but should be invoked when the company is commercially insolvent.

4. Bona Fide Disputes Regarding the Debt:
The respondent company did not dispute the debt but argued that it had sufficient assets to meet its liabilities. The court noted that the assets claimed by the company were in dispute and not readily realizable. The court held that in cases where the debt is undisputed, the company cannot avoid a winding-up order by merely asserting its ability to pay. The court cited Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 2600, which held that where the debt is undisputed, the court will not act upon a defense that the company has the ability to pay but chooses not to.

5. Commercial Solvency of the Company:
The court examined whether the company was commercially solvent, i.e., able to meet its current demands. The court found that the company was not in a position to meet its current liabilities and had not paid any amount to the petitioner despite multiple opportunities and undertakings. The court held that the test of commercial solvency is whether the company can meet its current demands, not whether it can pay off its debts by converting all its assets into cash. The court concluded that the respondent company was unable to pay its debts in the commercial sense.

Conclusion:
The court admitted the petition for winding up the company and directed the citation to be published in specified newspapers and the Delhi Gazette, returnable on July 8, 1997. The court exercised its discretion against the respondent company due to its failure to meet its current liabilities and the lack of a bona fide dispute regarding the debt.