2006 (12) TMI 236 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of statutory notice for winding up petition.
2. Disputed claim based on alleged forged document.
3. Company's ability to pay the debt.
4. Procedure for admission of winding up petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner claimed unpaid dues from the company and attempted to serve a statutory notice at the registered office, which was returned as "addressee not known." However, another notice was served at the head office, acknowledged by the company. The court held that the company's awareness of the demand through notice, even if not at the registered office, was sufficient to proceed with the winding up petition.

2. The company disputed the claim, alleging the demand was based on a forged document and suggesting it had made excess payments to the petitioner. The court noted discrepancies in the company's contentions and found that the petitioner had provided evidence to support the claim, including an indemnity document signed by the new management. The court rejected the company's argument regarding the genuineness of the document.

3. The court considered the company's ability to pay the debt and observed that despite making excess payments to the petitioner, the company had not provided a valid reason for the alleged overpayment. The court emphasized that the company's refusal to pay, without justification, indicated its inability to meet the debt, leading to the admission of the winding up petition.

4. Regarding the procedure for admission of the winding up petition, the court followed the practice of first establishing the debt due to the petitioner and then considering the company's liability to be wound up. The court admitted the petition for the principal sum due, with interest, and provided a stay if the dues were paid within a specified period. The court also outlined the advertisement and payment timelines in case of default by the company.

Overall, the judgment admitted the winding up petition based on the established debt, the company's inability to pay, and the procedural requirements followed by the court. The court granted a stay if the debt was paid within a specified period, emphasizing the creditor's right to have the petition admitted upon satisfactory proof of the debt due.