9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n why I deferred it was also because the respondents' learned advocate stated that his clients as businessmen would like to explore the possibility of resolving the outstanding issues. 2. The scheme of the Companies Act, 1956 is such that, if an outstanding liability is not cleared despite the service of statutory notice a presumption arises against the company and this presumption being a rebuttable one, it is open to the Company to satisfy the Court even in the course of the proceeding among other things, that it has the capacity to discharge the debt in question and one of the safest methods of doing this is by paying-up the amounts. An elaborate argument was advanced before me on behalf of the respondent that the Company Court is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons why the Company Court shows some level of indulgence even during the pendency of the proceedings where a bona fide and valid ground is shown in order to afford the company an opportunity of avoiding the harsh consequences of a winding up order. My attention was drawn to the earlier decision of this Court in 1995 (2) KLJ 85. I have perused the decision in question and I have benefited by a reading thereof but I do feel that the judgment in question requires to be qualified along the lines as indicated by me. 3. The respondents' learned advocate thereafter submitted that while assessing the concept of 'Commercial Insolvency', one of the important ingredients is the question as to whether the debts out-weigh the assets or whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible a party take up such a contention. The party concerned will have to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the defence taken is a genuine one and it not a sham defence as the onus shifts. In the present instance, considerable time has elapsed since the supply of the goods, there has not been a single letter despite numerous letters that have been exchanged between the parties stating that the goods were sub-standard or that the respondents have rejected them or that they do not propose to pay for them. In the absence of any such material, this Court cannot take any cognisance of such averments in the statement of objections. 5. Having regard to the position in law and the fact that despite three months having elapsed after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
