9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 580 - HC - Companies LawWinding up petition dismissed - Held that - The winding up process cannot be taken as a device for recovery of money as regards the transactions between the parties. Merely because there was a notice under section 434 of the Companies Act, it would not lead to an order of winding up to be made. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge was perfectly correct in dismissing the petition.
Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing petition for winding up of respondent-company. Analysis: The appellant claimed that work was done for the respondent, notices for balance amounts were sent, and a notice under section 434 of the Companies Act was issued as the balance remained unpaid. The respondent contended that the liability was not settled or payable, and detailed reasons were provided in response. The Company Court dismissed the petition for winding up, finding no merit. The appellant argued that the respondent failed to settle the balance despite part payments, justifying winding up. However, the respondent maintained that no liability was admitted or payable, and the notice under section 434 was disputed as time-barred. The High Court observed that the respondent acknowledged the work done but mentioned the balance would be worked out and communicated, indicating an unascertained sum, not an admitted liability. The notice under section 434 was replied to, disputing the liability and claiming it was time-barred. The court emphasized that winding up cannot be used as a means for debt recovery and requires a clear admission of liability, which was lacking in this case. Merely issuing a notice under section 434 does not warrant a winding-up order. Therefore, the High Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the petition for winding up. The appellant was advised to explore other legal remedies if deemed appropriate and permissible by law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the original side appeal was dismissed.
|
