9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny is Rs. 1 crore divided into 10 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The company was established with the object to carry on business of manufacturers, designers, assemblers, merchants, dealers, buyers, sellers, exporters and importers of all kinds of ceramic articles required for domestic and industrial use, like glazed tiles, wash basins, sanitary ware, switch fuse units, electric insulators and porcelain ware. 3. The Appellant appointed Varkey Overseas Trading Co. P. Ltd. ( the respondent ) their dealer for promotion and sale of ceramics glazed tiles proposed to be manufactured by the appellant company and in this regard a Memorandum of understanding dated 16-8-1989 was entered into between the appellant and the respondent. As per m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as Annexure-B to the company petition. Appellant by way of reply to the said notice wrote a letter on 22-8-1991 admitting their liability to pay the entire amount with interest at 21 per cent per annum and sought time to make the payment. Copy of the said reply is attached as Annexure C . 5. Subsequent to the receipt of the said notice appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 30-9-1991 and another sum of Rs. 50,000 on 22-2-1992. The Respondent caused issue of another notice through their advocate on 13-4-1992 threatening to initiate winding up proceedings. A copy of the said notice is Annexure-D. The appellant by way of reply on 23-4-1992 admitted their entire liability and wrote to the respondent offering to settle the outstanding amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 434 of the Act, the Act for winding up of the appellant company. 7. Appellant in its written statement basically admitted the factual matrix but denied its liability to pay interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum. According to it, it was liable to pay interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum only. It was also stated that the appellant has the intention to re-pay the amount but due to certain difficulties it could not pay back the amount for the reasons beyond its control; that efforts were being made for raising additional loans from financial institutions such as ICICI to clear the debt of the respondent. The Learned Single Judge being of the opinion that no valid defence was put-forth by the appellant and there was no a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay the amount. He had even agreed to clear the debts with 21 per cent interest. He had given post dated cheques starting from 20-7-1992 to 20-11-1992 totalling to a sum of Rs. 18,69,222, the details of which have been referred to in the earlier part of the judgment which on presentation were returned dishonoured. From this it is clear that there was an admitted liability outstanding against the appellant. Statutory notice under the Act was issued requiring the appellant to clear this admitted liability which he failed to do. Section 434 provides that the company would be deemed to be unable to pay its debts to whom the company is indebted in a sum exceeding Rs. 500 then due, if it neglects to pay the amount or to secure or to compound it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
