9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Winding up of a company due to default in payment of debts. 2. Discretion of the court in granting a winding up order. 3. Rights of a secured creditor in presenting a winding up petition. 4. Consideration of the benefit to creditors in a winding up order. Detailed Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal against the winding up order of a company due to default in payment of debts. The company, a public limited company, borrowed a sum secured by a mortgage from the respondent. The respondent filed for winding up under sections 162 and 166 of the Indian Companies Act, citing the company's inability to pay debts and mismanagement. The court considered the suspension of production and inability to pay debts as grounds for winding up, appointing the Official Receiver as the liquidator. The appellant's counsel argued against the winding up order, emphasizing that the respondent, a secured creditor, had sufficient security and no other creditor supported the petition. Citing legal precedents, the counsel contended that a winding up order should not be granted if the creditor can realize their security and no practical benefit would result from the winding up. The court referred to a similar case where a winding up petition was dismissed due to the opposition of other creditors and lack of practical benefit. The court acknowledged the general rule that a creditor has a right to a winding up order but highlighted that this right is subject to the court's discretion. It was noted that a winding up order should benefit the creditors generally, not just the petitioning creditor. The court concluded that in this case, where only the respondent would benefit from the winding up order, and other creditors opposed it, the order would not serve the general interest of creditors. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the winding up order and directing the official liquidator not to hand over possession of the company's properties for three months.
|
