2011 (2) TMI 1266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therein was not of recovery but of inability of company to pay its debts and its liability for being wound up. there is no bar to proceedings for winding up being initiated merely on account of pendency of proceedings before DRT and, therefore, order of Single Judge was to be upheld
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. I.S. Ratta for the Appellant. Manish Jain for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single judge admitting the petition under section 433/434 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the deemed inability of the appellant-company to pay its debts. 2. The case of the respondent-original petitioner before the learned company judge is that it is an a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... held that the company petition was maintainable, as the issue therein was not of recovery but of inability of the company to pay its debts and its liability for being wound up. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the company was not liable to pay anything to the respondent as the respondent had no privity of contract with the appellant. It claimed right under an assignment deed to which the appellant was not a party and which was not valid being not in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908. The issues raised in the company petition were complicated questions and the petition was merely a device to recover the am .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... v. ICICI Ltd. [2001] 2 Cal. LT 539 To submit that proceedings for winding up under the Companies Act are not barred under the RDB Act. 3.Central Bank of India v. Sukhani Mining & Engg. Industries (P.) Ltd. [1977] 47 Comp. Cas. 1 (Pat.) and Modern Gears (P.) Ltd. v. IL & FS Investment Ltd. [2006] 129 Comp. Cas. 337 (Cal.) To submit that mere pendency of suit was not a bar to filing of a company petition. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the view taken by the learned company judge. There is no bar to proceedings for winding up being initiated merely on account of pendency of proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The judgment relied upon on behalf of the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X