1973 (8) TMI 61 - HC - Companies Law

Circumstances in which a company may be wound up Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts

Issues Involved:

1. Non-commencement of business within one year of incorporation.
2. Financial losses and nil reserves and surplus.
3. Misleading profit statements by the company.
4. Lack of tangible material to promote company objectives.
5. Nationalisation of collieries affecting business prospects.
6. Just and equitable grounds for winding up.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-commencement of Business Within One Year of Incorporation:

The company, Messrs. Chauhan Brothers Industries Private Ltd., was incorporated on May 20, 1958. It did not commence its business within one year of incorporation, which is a ground for winding up under Section 433(c) of the Companies Act. The company admitted that it had not started its business until the financial years 1970-71 and 1971-72, during which it earned minimal profits. The court noted that for over ten years, the company had not commenced business, which justified the petition for winding up.

2. Financial Losses and Nil Reserves and Surplus:

The company's financial statements for the years ending March 31, 1968, 1969, and 1970 showed continuous losses. Additionally, the company had no reserves or surplus. The petitioner argued that the company's financial position was weak, and it had no intention to carry on business until 1969-70. The court found that the company's financial condition and lack of reserves justified the winding-up order.

3. Misleading Profit Statements by the Company:

The company claimed to have earned profits of Rs. 729.75 and Rs. 724.25 in the financial years 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively, by way of coal commission. However, the Registrar of Companies countered this claim, stating that the actual profits were only Rs. 76.50 and Rs. 88.25. The court found the company's profit statements misleading and insufficient to demonstrate a viable business.

4. Lack of Tangible Material to Promote Company Objectives:

The company failed to provide tangible evidence to support its claim of setting up an industry at Dhanbad Industrial Estate. Despite being asked by the Regional Director to furnish data and produce evidence, the company did not comply. The court noted that the absence of such data indicated that the company was not in a position to promote its objectives or run a profitable business.

5. Nationalisation of Collieries Affecting Business Prospects:

The company's directors argued that the nationalisation of their collieries freed them to focus on the company's business. However, the court found this argument unconvincing, as the nationalisation also meant that the company could not secure business related to collieries, one of its main objectives. The court concluded that the company was not in a position to carry on business at a profit.

6. Just and Equitable Grounds for Winding Up:

The court considered whether it was just and equitable to order the winding up of the company under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act. The court found that the company's prolonged non-commencement of business, lack of financial viability, and inability to promote its objectives justified the winding-up order. The court cited several precedents, including D. Davis & Co. Ltd. v. Brunswick (Australia) Ltd. and Cine Industries and Recording Co. Ltd., to support its decision.

Conclusion:

The court directed that the company be wound up with effect from the date of the petition for winding up. The official liquidator was appointed to take charge of the company's assets and records and proceed with the liquidation. The petition was allowed, but no order for costs was made. The court applied both Section 433(c) and Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, despite the petition only mentioning Section 433(c), as the facts justified winding up on both grounds.

← Previous Next →