9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition seeking winding up of a company under Companies Act, 1956 based on a creditor's claim for unascertained damages. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company due to non-payment of an assigned debt. The petitioner, a creditor by assignment from a Belgian company, claimed that the respondent company breached an agreement for the supply of machinery, leading to cancellation of the order. The petitioner sought damages for the cancellation, alleging that the respondent owed $600,000 as admitted debt. The respondent contested the petition, arguing that it was a profit-making company and the dispute was misconceived as it involved unascertained damages, not a clear debt. The court considered the disputed facts and held that the petition was not maintainable as it involved contentious issues requiring detailed investigation. The court emphasized that the claimed damages were unascertained and not equivalent to a debt. The respondent's profitability and the existence of a bona fide dispute indicated that the matter was better suited for a civil court for a thorough examination of facts. The court highlighted that under the Act, winding up is appropriate for ascertained debts when a company is unable to pay, which was not the case here due to the profit-earning status of the respondent. The court referenced the principle from Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., emphasizing that liquidated damages must be ascertained, unlike the damages claimed in the present case. The court dismissed the petition, directing the parties to pursue their remedy through the civil suit already filed. The judgment concluded with a refusal to entertain the petition and no costs awarded. In summary, the court ruled that the petition seeking winding up based on unascertained damages was not maintainable under the Companies Act, 1956. The court emphasized the need for a civil court to resolve the disputed issues and ascertain the damages claimed, considering the respondent's profitability and the absence of an admitted debt. The judgment highlighted the distinction between liquidated damages and unascertained damages, leading to the dismissal of the winding-up petition.
|
