9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Claim for outstanding chit fund amount. 2. Plea for set off by the respondents. 3. Requirement of court fees for set off or counter-claim under the A.P. Court Fees Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Claim for Outstanding Chit Fund Amount: The applicant sought a direction under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act for the respondents to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 35,163.80 with interest at 12% per annum from 17-9-2000 till realization. The company, M/s. Mamatha Chit Fund (P.) Limited, was directed to be wound up, and the Official Liquidator was appointed. The first respondent, a subscriber to the chit, had received Rs. 60,000 as a prize amount after deductions. He paid Rs. 64,836.20 towards monthly subscriptions but failed to pay the remaining Rs. 35,163.80. Despite a notice from the Assistant Official Liquidator, the first respondent did not settle the amount. 2. Plea for Set Off by the Respondents: The third respondent claimed he subscribed to another chit and paid Rs. 28,000, requesting it to be adjusted against the first respondent's dues. The respondents admitted the applicant's claim but sought a set off for the amount covered by chit group No. LP 19F: 32. The court examined whether the plea of set off required the payment of necessary court fees. 3. Requirement of Court Fees for Set Off or Counter-Claim: The court delved into the provisions of the A.P. Court Fees Act and the Companies Act. Section 446 of the Companies Act confers jurisdiction on the Company Court to entertain claims by or against the company during winding up. Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 applies the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under the Act. Section 4 of the A.P. Court Fees Act mandates that documents chargeable with fees must be stamped accordingly. Section 8 requires court fees on set off or counter-claims as on plaints. Sections 15 and 19 further elaborate on the payment of court fees on various proceedings. The court noted the historical context and amendments to section 446, emphasizing the need for a cheaper and summary remedy to avoid prolix and expensive litigation. It was observed that applications under section 446(2)(b) should be treated as petitions rather than regular suits, requiring court fees as per Schedule II of the A.P. Court Fees Act, not on an ad valorem basis. The court referenced judgments from Mysore, Punjab and Haryana, and Delhi High Courts, concluding that applications by the Official Liquidator should be stamped as applications under the Companies Act with a fixed court fee of Rs. 13 as per article 1(d) of Schedule II. Judgment: The company application was allowed, decreeing Rs. 35,163.80 in favor of the applicant against the respondents. The respondents were entitled to set off Rs. 19,120, leaving a balance of Rs. 16,043.80, payable with 6% interest per annum from the date of decree till realization. The decree would come into effect upon payment of the requisite court fees as discussed. The court highlighted the need for legislative amendments to the A.P. Court Fees Act to incorporate provisions for court fees on various applications under the Companies Act.
|
