9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Default in payment of instalments directed by previous court orders. 2. Interpretation of The Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 in relation to winding up applications. 3. Jurisdiction of the Court in winding up proceedings under The Companies Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner highlighted defaults in payment of instalments as directed by previous court orders. The Company did not dispute the defaults, and no affidavit was filed to contest the defaults. The petitioner sought further directions due to these defaults, asserting entitlement based on non-compliance with the payment schedule. 2. The Company's advocate argued that the winding up application should not proceed under The Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The judge opined that a winding up application is distinct from a debt recovery application under the said Act. A winding up proceeding falls under The Companies Act, and the decision to wind up a company is governed by the provisions of The Companies Act, not the Debt Recovery Act. 3. The judge clarified that a winding up application is a specific remedy granted under The Companies Act. The court's role in a winding up application is to determine if the company meets the criteria for winding up as outlined in Section 433 of The Companies Act. The court assesses factors such as the company's inability to pay debts and other conditions specified in Sections 434 and 439 of The Companies Act to decide on the winding up application. 4. Emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the court in winding up proceedings, the judge stated that the Tribunal established under The Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 does not have the authority to entertain or adjudicate winding up applications. Consequently, the winding up application was admitted, and the petitioner was directed to issue advertisements as per the court's instructions for further proceedings in the matter.
|
