9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. JUDGMENT Sehgal, J. This judgment will also dispose of C. A. No. 23 of 1984 as the law point involved in both the appeals is the same. Company Application No. 19 of 1984 arises out of the order dated 20th July, 1984 ( See [1985] 58 Comp. Cas. 875 (P. H.)), of a learned company judge of this court whereby Company Petition No. 77 of 1983 under sections 433, 434 and 43 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods represented by the invoice was not paid within the agreed credit period and on this account a sum of Rs 14,926.77 was due from it up to October 31, 1981. It is further alleged that the respondent company in spite of service of notice failed to make the payment of the balance principal amount as well as interest. As the respondent company was unable to pay its debts, the appellant fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bills and that the claim for interest being totally disputed, no winding up order could be passed on that basis. Consequently, the petition for winding up of the respondent company was dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant had not presented the petition for winding up of the respondent company exclusively on the ground of non-payment of interest which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersy whether or not the appellant is entitled to interest on the principal debt. We are of the view that since the learned company judge was seized of the matter, and the liability to pay the principal amount of debt, on the basis of which the respondent company had been sought to be wound up had been admitted by the respondent company and had in fact been paid up through a bank draft, the quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
