9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Refusal to pass a receiving order on a winding up petition based on defense raised by the respondent-company.
Analysis: 1. The High Court of Allahabad, in agreement with the previous judgment by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J, refused to pass a receiving order on the winding up petition of the appellant. The statutory notice alleged non-payment for goods sold and supplied, countered by the company's defense that the goods were returned, despite issuing and dishonoring cheques. The company also claimed to have made subsequent payments for numerous supplies by the petitioner, supported by sales tax declaration forms. The Court found it challenging to believe that the supplies received were returned. 2. The Court acknowledged that the defense raised by the respondent-company was not mala fide or baseless. Based on these findings, the Court refused to admit the winding up petition, emphasizing that unless the company's defense is baseless, the winding up procedure is not appropriate. Notably, the supplies in question were made in 1996, with the winding up petition filed in 1999. The petitioner did not seek a self-restraining injunction to preserve the limitation period for a lawsuit, nor did they file a suit. The Court speculated that the petitioner may have refrained from legal action due to the uncertain nature of the claim, deeming it unwise to incur court fees without a strong case. 3. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision to refuse the winding up petition. The judgment highlights the importance of a valid defense in such matters and underscores the necessity for a strong legal basis to initiate winding up proceedings, especially when the company's defense is not frivolous.
|
