9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, doctrine of single economic entity is not only well established, but also well recognized by the Courts. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the defence of the respondent would have to be examined. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a recovery proceeding in accordance with law. - CO. PETITION NO. 232 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2012 - MANMOHAN, J. Partha Sil for the Petitioner. JUDGMENT 1. Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 433( e ) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 stating that respondent company is unable to pay its debts allegedly amounting to Rs. 38,48,466.67/-. 2. The facts as stated in the petition are tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r clients are manifestly illegal, malicious and non-est in law. Your clients has obviously not presented you with correct facts. ** ** ** 8. We are instructed to state that in addition to payments of aforementioned amounts due to our clients, our clients are prejudiced by various other illegal and unethical actions of Wacker, including but not limiting to: ( a ) Breach of the exclusively commitment given to our client; ( b ) Termination of the entire distribution arrangement, without any cause and prior notice to our client; ( c ) Deliberate sale of goods as loss leaders or at a discounted and predatory price by Wacker in India, to ensure losses to our client and destroy its market and bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of feedback from Wacker Chemie A.G., Germany, in respect of your alleged pending claim with them as will appear form your e. mail dated 9th September, 2011 addressed to our client. You have been informed by our client's e. mail dated 14th September, 2011, that payments due to our client cannot be conditional upon response from Wacker Chemie A.G., Germany." [Emphasis supplied] 5. Though learned counsel for petitioner admits that the respondent has had business transactions with the petitioner's holding company, but he states that the petitioner's holding company is an independent corporate entity and consequently the aforesaid defence should not be looked into by this Court. 6. However, this Court in its judgment in Pank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eated as one, and the parent company, DHN, should be treated as that one. So that DHN are entitled to claim compensation accordingly. It was not necessary for them to go through a conveyancing device to get it." 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the defence of the respondent would have to be examined. However, this Court cannot do so as its jurisdiction is summary in nature. 8. Moreover, the Supreme Court in IBA Health ( I .) ( P .) Ltd . v. Info-Drive Systems Sdn. Bhd. [2010] 104 SCL 367/8 taxmann.com 1 has held that "the Company Court is expected to ascertain that the company's refusal is supported by a reasonable cause or a bona fide dispute in which the dispute can only be adjudicated by a trial in a civil co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
