Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (5) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id that respondent No. 1-company through its managing director, Shri Ashok Anand, approached the Sector 22D Branch, Chandigarh, of the petitioner bank with a request for sanction of cash credit, packing credit, foreign outward bills, negotiated foreign letter of credit facilities on various dates to and in the name of respondent-company to meet the working capital requirements, etc., of the respondent-company. The said company also requested the petitioner-bank to grant facility of foreign letter of credit which request initially was for Rs. 11 lakhs which was later requested to be enhanced from Rs. 11 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs and then from Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 40 lakhs and for conversion of the cash credit pledge limit into cash credit hypothe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s adjourned from time to time and when, it came up for hearing on January 30, 1985, before a learned single judge of this court, the following order was passed : "It has been agreed between the parties that the respondents shall pay Rs. 5,00,000 by February 15, 1985, and the balance amount with interest at the agreed rate by April 30, 1986, and in case they fail to pay either of the instalments, the petition shall be advertised. It is further agreed that after the whole amount is paid, the petitioner shall issue 'no due certificate' to the respondents. I order accordingly. The petition be filed subject to the condition that in case the respondents fails to pay any of the instalments, the petitioner shall be entitled to get the petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... proved liability of the respondent-company which it has neglected to pay manifesting beyond doubt that the company is unable to pay its debts. He further contends that in this case no further proof is required for returning a finding that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts but to refer to the order passed by this court on January 30, 1985, extract whereof has been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. Mr. Suri, learned senior advocate, representing the respondent-company could not urge anything with regard to liability of the respondent-company to pay the debt incurred by it to the petitioner-bank. However, he has endeavoured to deny the relief to the petitioner asked for on three technical grounds. The, first co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it may be in the interest of the shareholders, creditors and the employees to wind up this company as, apparently, in the hands of the present directors, the company has miserably failed. Before I part with this order, I would like to mention that the matter came up for final arguments on February 9, 1996. Since none had appeared on behalf of the respondent-company, after hearing the arguments of Mr. Mittal, I had started dictating the order. When, however, only the facts had been recorded, Mr. Suri appeared and requested for an adjournment. In the interest of justice, the same was allowed. The matter then came up for hearing before me on February 16, 1996, when Mr. Suri, with a view to show the bona fides of the company, presented two .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Punjab Government Gazette. Pursuant to orders dated December 13, 1985, the petition had been advertised as directed. Counsel has also filed an affidavit in this regard as is clear from orders dated September 18, 1986. Objections have also been filed against the publication of the petition. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 10,000. It is held that the respondent-company is unable to pay its due debts and is, therefore, ordered to be wound up. The official liquidator attached to this court is appointed as liquidator of the respondent-company and he is directed to take charge of the company and its assets into his custody forthwith or under his control all the properties and e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates