2004 (7) TMI 356 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Settlement agreement and subsequent grievance regarding further dues.
2. Company petition for winding up based on non-payment of dues.
3. Disputed liability to pay dues and dismissal of the company petition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant had settled the matter with the respondent-company and received the full settlement amount. Despite this, the appellant later raised a grievance regarding further dues to be recovered from the respondent. The respondent had offered all creditors, including the appellant, the opportunity to liquidate their amounts by accepting fifty percent of the total outstanding due. The appellant received two drafts, encashed them, but did not take any action for almost four years. Subsequently, the appellant served a notice under the Companies Act demanding payment within twenty-one days, threatening to file a company petition. However, as the matter had already been settled, the respondent did not reply, leading to the appellant filing the company petition for winding up.

2. The learned Company Judge provided the respondent with an opportunity to file a reply to the petition. The respondent disputed its liability to pay the alleged dues, citing that the matter had been settled between the parties, and the appellant had not taken any action for four years after receiving the amount. The Company Judge, considering these grounds, dismissed the company petition for winding up. It was held that the amount claimed was not a debt, the respondent was not unable to pay debts, and the respondent had raised a genuine dispute regarding the claimed amount.

3. The appeal was filed against the order of the Company Judge, which was decided in favor of the respondent. The High Court reviewed the grounds of appeal and found no merit or force in them. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as it failed to provide sufficient reasons to overturn the decision of the Company Judge. The High Court upheld the dismissal of the company petition based on the reasons previously assigned by the Company Judge, emphasizing that there was no valid basis to entertain the appeal.