9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Winding Up Petition: Whether the company should be wound up u/s 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Company's Application for Rejection: Whether the company's application to reject the winding-up petition in limine should be allowed. 3. Compliance with Procedural Rules: Whether the petition complies with the procedural rules and forms as stipulated by the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. 4. Decree Holder's Right to Petition: Whether a decree holder can maintain a petition for winding up u/s 433(e) of the Companies Act. Judgment Summary: 1. Winding Up Petition: The petitioner, a creditor, sought the winding up of Rajaram Bandekar (Sirigao) Mines Pvt. Ltd. u/s 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, due to the company's inability to pay its debt amounting to Rs. 38,96,460 as per a decree from the Civil Court, Vasco da Gama. The company defaulted on the instalments stipulated in the consent decree, leading to the petitioner's claim that the entire balance amount became payable immediately with interest. The court found that the company admitted to the existence of the consent decree, default in payment, receipt of statutory notice, and non-compliance with the demand. 2. Company's Application for Rejection: The company filed an application to reject the winding-up petition in limine, arguing that the petition was a gross abuse of the court's process and was filed with mala fide intentions to delay the hearing. The court decided to hear both the company petition and the company application simultaneously, noting that the company's application was an attempt to delay the hearing of the winding-up petition. The court rejected the company's application, stating that the grounds for rejection were hypertechnical and devoid of substance. 3. Compliance with Procedural Rules: The company argued that the petition did not comply with the mandatory procedural rules and forms as stipulated by the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The court held that while procedural rules are statutory, substantial compliance is sufficient, especially when the material facts are admitted by the company. The court emphasized that the purpose of pleadings and affidavits is to confine the party to the pleadings and to provide evidence for the court to decide the petition. The court found that the petition substantially complied with the requirements and that the technical defects in the affidavit and verification did not warrant the rejection of the petition. 4. Decree Holder's Right to Petition: The court addressed whether a decree holder can maintain a petition for winding up u/s 433(e) of the Companies Act. The court referred to various judgments and concluded that a petition by a decree holder falls within the ambit of section 433(e), which includes all sorts of debts, including judgment debts under a decree. The court rejected the company's argument that a debt under a decree cannot be the basis for a winding-up petition. Conclusion: The court admitted the winding-up petition and rejected the company's application for rejection. The court ordered that no advertisement of the winding-up petition should be made for six weeks, allowing the company to deposit the amount due within this period. If the company fails to do so, the advertisement will follow. The order was pronounced, and notice of the order was given to counsel for the parties.
|
