9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Petition seeking to wind up the company under section 433(c) and (f) read with section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. - Allegation of company ceasing business operations from 1987 onwards and incurring significant losses during operation. - Examination of witnesses to establish the cessation of business activities post-March 1987. - Reliance on exhibit A-2, a cash bill/proforma invoice, to show continued business operations post-1987. - Interpretation of section 433(c) of the Companies Act regarding the grounds for winding up a company. - Conducting a shareholders' meeting to determine the majority view on winding up the company. - Analysis of the shareholders' support for or against winding up the company. - Opposition to the winding-up proposal based on the potential for profitable management and accountability of current management. - Decision on the petition based on established grounds of business suspension and majority shareholder support. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition filed under section 433(c) and (f) read with section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, by a shareholder seeking the winding up of the company. The petitioner alleged that the company ceased business operations from 1987 onwards and incurred substantial losses during its operation. Witnesses, including the petitioner and the deputy chairman of the company, provided evidence indicating the company's lack of business activity post-March 1987. Despite attempts to show continued business through exhibit A-2, a cash bill, no concrete evidence was presented to establish ongoing operations after 1987. Section 433(c) of the Companies Act stipulates grounds for winding up a company, including the failure to commence business within a year of incorporation or suspending business for a whole year. In this case, the petition was filed in October 1990, alleging the company's lack of business activity since 1987, aligning with the provisions of section 433(c). The court conducted a shareholders' meeting to gauge majority opinion on the winding up of the company, revealing that 34 out of 48 members supported the proposal, while four opposed it. Despite opposition from certain advocates advocating for profitable management and accountability of the current management, the court emphasized the established grounds of business suspension for over a year and the majority shareholder support for winding up the company. The judgment concluded by allowing the petition, appointing the official liquidator, and directing the registry to issue relevant orders. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to pay a specified amount to cover initial expenses for the liquidation process within a stipulated timeframe.
|
