9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner is a contingent creditor and if the petition for winding up requires leave of the court. 2. Whether the petition is maintainable given the arbitration and settlement reached between the parties. 3. Whether a fresh notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act is required after the arbitration award. 4. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the petitioner under the arbitration award. Detailed Analysis: 1. Contingent Creditor and Leave of Court: The first issue revolves around whether the petitioner is a contingent creditor, necessitating leave of the court for the winding-up petition. The petitioner argued that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, as per Sections 126, 127, and 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court agreed with this argument, noting that the petitioner was not a contingent creditor since the liability was present and not dependent on any contingency. The court distinguished the present case from the Gujarat High Court's decision in Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Kermeen Foods P. Ltd., emphasizing that the petitioner had an existing obligation from the respondents, making the leave of the court unnecessary. 2. Maintainability of Petition Post-Arbitration: The second issue concerns whether the petition is maintainable following arbitration and a settlement award. The respondent argued that the arbitration indicated a bona fide dispute over the debt, rendering the winding-up petition inappropriate. However, the court found that the arbitration was due to inter se differences between the respondents and not a dispute over the petitioner's claim. The court emphasized that the respondents had not specifically denied their liability in their communications, and the arbitration award was a subsequent event that did not negate the petition's basis. 3. Requirement of Fresh Notice Under Section 434: The third issue is whether a fresh notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act is required after the arbitration award. The court considered various judgments on the necessity of notice and concluded that while notice gives the benefit of presumption under Section 434(1)(a), the creditor can still prove the company's inability to pay its debts independently. The court held that the petitioner was not required to issue a fresh notice post-award, as the award was a subsequent event, and the petitions were already based on the indebtedness established by the award. 4. Liability Under the Arbitration Award: The final issue pertains to the respondents' liability under the arbitration award. The award stipulated specific payments and conditions, which the respondents failed to meet. The court noted that the respondents, including the guarantors, were liable to pay the petitioner as per the award's terms. Despite some payments made, the respondents did not satisfy the full amount due, leading to a prima facie liability of Rs. 2,43,22,153 with interest under clause 7 of the award. The court found that the respondents were jointly and severally liable for this amount, and the ground of Section 433(f) of the Companies Act would be considered at the final disposal of the petitions. In conclusion, the court admitted the petition, ordered it to be advertised, and granted interim relief, affirming the petitioner's claims and the respondents' liabilities under the arbitration award.
|
