9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant-company is not answerable to anybody. The appellant-company is still liable and applying the principle of subrogation, the insurance company can always recover the money from the appellant and in any case, if the money is received by the creditor-company then, to the extent of the receipts, the creditor-company would refund the money to the insurance company. That would be a matter between the insurance company and the creditor-company. The debtor is not entitled to take any benefits out of the said transaction. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the manner in which the present company has behaved and as on today the liability of the appellant-company qua the creditor-company is more than Rs. 65 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t about 95 per cent, of the loan amount from the insurance company, was entitled to 5 per cent, from the present appellant-company and as the present appellant-company was ready and willing to make the payment of the same, the learned single judge should not have exercised his discretion in favour of admitting/publishing the notice in relation to the company. 4. Placing reliance upon certain judgments of the different courts, it was submitted that as the net worth of the company is positive and it is a running and profit making company, the learned company judge should not have admitted the petition to give death knell to the working of the company. His further submission was that as the total worth of the company is more than Rs. 115 crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t observed that the net current assets of the company were increasing from Rs. 818.33 lakhs to Rs. 913.42 lakhs, i.e. , there was a net increase of more than Rs. 90 lakhs within two years. After going through the said judgment, we are of the opinion that the said judgment on the facts does not apply to the present matter. 6. In the present matter, it is to be seen that the loan was taken by the company somewhere in the year 1993 and the company which claims to be running profit making assetful company, did not discharge its liability within the statutory period despite the demand notice and the insurance company had to discharge the liability. The endeavor of Mr. Soparkar was to convince us that if the creditor-company has already received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was approved by a Division Bench in O. J. Appeal No. 27 of 2000, on November 27, 2000. In the said matter, the learned single judge observed that the petitioner had not come to the court bona fide and he had already instituted the suit much before filing the company petition. In the present set of circumstances, it is now not disputed before us that the suit has been filed much after institution of the winding up matter. The facts of the said case were totally different. 9. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the apex court in the matter of Dolphin International Ltd. v. Gave Laboratories Ltd. [2003] 96 FLR 304, to contend that if the balance-sheet shows good business and the creditor-company has already filed a suit for rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
