9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the company has suspended its business. 2. Whether an order for winding up the company should be passed. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the company has suspended its business: The facts are not much in dispute regarding the company's suspension of business. It is undisputed that the company, Bihar Wire and Wire Products Private Ltd., suffered losses during several years, as evidenced by the balance-sheet as at 30th September 1969. The company ceased its primary business activities, including manufacturing wire products, from October 1967 to September 1971. The directors' reports from 1966-67 to 1970-71 consistently stated that the business had practically ceased to function. The company did not have any production or sale after 1966-67. Although the company did some manufacturing business in 1971-72, it still suffered a loss if interest earned from money-lending was excluded. The company's directors claimed that the suspension was due to the Government not granting the quota of raw materials, making it unprofitable to carry on the business. They were attempting to obtain the quota and decided to purchase raw materials from the open market in the interim. 2. Whether an order for winding up the company should be passed: Clause (c) of section 433 of the Companies Act provides that a company may be wound up if it suspends its business for a whole year. The court, however, will not make an order unless it is satisfied that there has been an intention to abandon the business or an inability to carry it on. The court must consider whether there is a reasonable hope of the company resuming business and doing it at a profit. The wishes of the majority of the shareholders also play a crucial role in the court's decision. In this case, all shareholders, who are members of one family, opposed the winding-up and wished to continue the company. The company had resumed some business activities in 1971-72 by purchasing raw materials from the open market. There is no evidence of insolvency or debts, and no allegation of mismanagement. The court found no compelling reason to order the winding-up, considering the shareholders' willingness to bear the losses and their hope of future profitability. The court also noted that winding-up would result in a waste of money over the liquidation proceedings with no benefit to the shareholders or any third party. In conclusion, the application for winding-up was dismissed as the court found no just or equitable reason to order the winding-up of the company. There was no order for costs.
|
