Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2024 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 776 - HC - Companies LawIssues involved: The petition seeks winding up of a company u/s 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 for non-payment of outstanding amount. The respondent disputes the debt and claims overcharging by the petitioner. Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Winding up petition for non-payment of outstanding amount The petitioner sought winding up of the respondent company for non-payment of an outstanding amount along with interest. The respondent company disputed the debt, claiming overcharging by the petitioner and a genuine counterclaim. The Court noted that the contentions raised constituted triable issues as there was a dispute regarding the existence of a payable debt. It was held that the Company Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts and such matters should be subject to a commercial suit. Issue 2: Dispute over debt and overcharging The respondent company contended that there was no debt payable to the petitioner as claimed. They alleged that the petitioner had been overcharging them and should actually refund a portion of the billed amount. The respondent argued that instituting a winding up proceeding was not the appropriate means for debt enforcement, and they had a genuine counterclaim. The Court acknowledged the disputes raised by both parties as triable issues that should be addressed in a commercial court. Issue 3: Withdrawal of petition and liberty to approach commercial court The petitioner requested to withdraw the winding up petition with liberty to pursue the matter before the appropriate commercial court. The Court allowed the withdrawal and granted the petitioner the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of time spent during the proceedings. The Court cited a previous decision emphasizing that the Company Court should not adjudicate disputed facts that should be raised in a civil suit. The petitioner was directed to approach the civil court for adjudication of their claim and seek condonation of delay if necessary. In conclusion, the company petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and the petitioner was granted liberty to institute proceedings before the appropriate Commercial Court. The Court clarified that the dismissal did not imply an opinion on the case's merits.
|