2004 (11) TMI 333 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Claim for money lent and advanced, service of Statutory Notice of Demand, acknowledgment of liability, dispute on confirmation of accounts, shifting of registered office, defense of non-service of notice, liability of the company for payments made to proprietorship concern, admission of winding up petition, publication of advertisement.

Analysis:
1. The winding up petition involves a claim for money lent and advanced, along with money paid on behalf of the company. The company acknowledged the payments through various acknowledgements attached to the petition, leading to a total due amount of Rs. 6,51,652. The company disputed the petition on the grounds of non-service of Statutory Notice of Demand at the registered office, claiming it was served at a different location. However, the petitioning creditor provided evidence that the registered office was shifted to the location where the notice was served. The company also raised concerns about the confirmation of accounts, alleging that the deponent signed them in blank. The company argued that the payments were made to a proprietorship concern, not the company, and hence, the company should not be held liable. Despite these arguments, the company failed to provide a bona fide dispute to resist the admission of the petition.

2. The court found the company's defense to be an afterthought, considering the plea of non-service of the notice as a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. The court emphasized that the company could not justify why the admission order should not be passed based on their acknowledgments of liability. Consequently, the court concluded that the sum of Rs. 6,51,652 was indeed due and payable by the company to the petitioner.

3. Subsequently, the winding up petition was admitted for the mentioned sum, along with an interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of acknowledgment until payment. Additionally, the petitioning creditor was granted permission to publish advertisements in specific newspapers, with a returnable period of six weeks after publication. However, a directive was issued to delay the advertisement publication for a fortnight from the date of the judgment.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, including the acknowledgment of liability, dispute on service of notice, and the ultimate admission of the winding up petition.