2018 (9) TMI 203 - HC - Companies Law

Winding-up petition - C-Forms being belatedly filed - Held that - C-Forms of total value of ₹ 7,44,027/- have been carried by the appellant to this Court, the appellant is permitted to make over the same to advocate for the respondent. It is recorded that the C-Forms have been made over to advocate for the respondent in Court. The respondent will now apply before the appropriate authorities for refund of any amount that the respondent may have paid. It will also be open to the respondent to rely on such C-Forms as made over by the appellant today before the appellate authority where the appeal is pending. The respondent will be entitled to cite this order, whether before the appellate authority or before the sales-tax authorities, for the purpose of an early resolution of the respondent s claim for refund or adjustment based on the C-Forms being belatedly filed. If the refund is allowed, the quantum of security furnished by the appellant in terms of this order with the Registrar, Original Side will stand reduced to such extent and such amount will be refunded by the Registrar to the appellant herein on the basis of this order. Since the company petition is returnable before the company Court on August 28, 2018 in terms of the advertisements published, the company Court will be free to direct the appellant herein to make payment of the admitted amount in respect of the eight undisputed bills to advocate for the respondent herein on the returnable date, if no other creditor supports the winding-up or is represented.

Summary

Issues involved:
Admission of winding-up petition, disputed invoices, non-furnishing of C-Forms, company's defense, suit filed by the company, payment directions, refund of C-Forms, disposal of the case, costs, refund status updates, winding-up proceedings.

Admission of winding-up petition:
The appeal challenged the admission of a winding-up petition by a creditor for a specific amount with interest. The respondent argued that the appeal was infructuous as the petition had been advertised. The court clarified that an appeal can be considered post-advertisement, but safeguards must be maintained, especially if payment directions are issued affecting multiple creditors due to the representative nature of the matter.

Disputed invoices and non-furnishing of C-Forms:
The principal amount of the admitted petition included sums for invoices and non-furnishing of C-Forms. The appellant claimed a dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied, leading to penalties by sales-tax authorities. The court examined various correspondences and found the company's defense unconvincing, especially noting discrepancies in the appellant's claims and actions.

Company's defense and suit filed:
The company court disbelieved the company's defense, highlighting issues with post-dated cheques, lack of corroboration for alleged debit notes, and the company's attempt to avoid payment through a suit. The court emphasized that filing a suit disputing dues does not automatically invalidate a winding-up petition if the debt is found legitimate.

Payment directions and refund of C-Forms:
The court modified the order, directing payment for undisputed invoices and depositing disputed amounts as security. The appellant was allowed to provide C-Forms to the respondent for refund claims, with instructions for potential refund adjustments based on the C-Forms submitted.

Disposal of the case and winding-up proceedings:
The court directed payment procedures based on creditor representation, ensuring no fraudulent preferences. The case disposal involved specific directions for payment, costs, refund updates, and the winding-up proceedings' status, contingent on debt discharge and deposit completion.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of admission of the winding-up petition, disputed invoices, company's defense, payment directions, and the overall disposal of the case, providing a detailed understanding of the judgment's key aspects and legal implications.