9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against order rejecting petition for permanent stay of winding-up proceedings, lack of material particulars in winding-up application, claim of fictitious loans, claim barred by limitation, contention regarding injunction by Darjeeling court, maintainability of winding-up petition in case of secured debt.
Winding-up Proceedings: The respondent filed a petition under section 434 of the Companies Act, claiming non-payment of a loan by the appellant company and seeking winding-up. The appellant disputed the claim, alleging fictitious loans and a false mortgage on assets. The court held that the acknowledgment of the loan in the company's balance-sheets was sufficient under the Limitation Act, and the injunction from the Darjeeling court did not prevent the respondent from proving the debt. The petition for permanent stay was dismissed. Material Particulars: The appellant argued that the winding-up application lacked material particulars, which are mandatory under the Companies (Court) Rules. However, the court found that the admission of debts in the balance-sheets was clear and unequivocal, and the absence of specific particulars did not affect the maintainability of the petition as the loan acknowledgment was not disputed. Fictitious Loans and Limitation: The appellant claimed that the loans were fictitious and barred by limitation. The court held that the acknowledgment of indebtedness in successive balance-sheets constituted acknowledgment under the Limitation Act, and the plea of limitation was not sustained due to lack of denial of such acknowledgment. Injunction by Darjeeling Court: The appellant contended that the winding-up claim was affected by an injunction from the Darjeeling court. However, the court found that the injunction did not prevent the winding-up proceedings, as the respondent could prove the debt through other evidence apart from the notice under section 434. Secured Debt and Maintainability: The appellant argued that the winding-up petition was not maintainable due to the alleged secured debt. The court rejected this contention, citing section 439(1)(b) which allows any creditor, including a secured creditor, to petition for winding up. As all contentions raised by the appellant failed, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
