9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2016 - S. Manikumar, J. For the Petitioner : Ms. P. Meghana Nair ORDER Company Petition No.164 of 2015 has been filed by INEGA Model Management Private Limited, Mumbai, under Section 433 (e) and (f) 434 (i)(a) and 439 (i) and (b) of the Act, for winding up of M/s.GNT Media Private Limited, Chennai. 2. Facts leading to the filing of the Company Petition are that the respondent has approached M/s.INEGA Model Management Private Limited, Mumbai / petitioner, for arranging various models for shooting, for the respondent's magazine, 'Wedding Wows' on five different dates. Petitioner raised invoices as hereunder:- Date of Shooting Date of Invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1th September, 2013 000017, HDFC Bank 56180 5. According to M/s.INEGA Model Management Private Limited, Mumbai, out of the total amount of ₹ 2,86,518/- as on 27.05.2013, the petitioner has received only ₹ 1,23,596/-. A sum of ₹ 1,62,922/- was due. Adding interest to the amount payable, a statutory notice dated 25.10.2014 was issued in terms of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon the respondent to make payment of ₹ 2,02,023/- with interest, at the rate of 18% from 27.05.2013. As on the date of filing of the company petition, a sum of ₹ 2,11,799/- was due. 6. In the abovesaid circumstances, M/s.INEGA Model Management Private Limited, Mumb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as to make it reasonably certain as to make the Court feel satisfied that the existing and probable assets would be insufficient to meet the existing liabilities . 9. In IBA Health (I) P Limited Vs. M/s.Info Drive Systems Sdn.Bhd., reported in 2010 (10) SCC 553, at paragraph Nos.33 to 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: Malicious Proceedings for winding up 33. .....A party to the dispute should not be allowed to use the threat of winding up petition as a means of enforcing the company to pay a bona fide disputed debt. A Company Court cannot be reduced as a debt collecting agency or as a means of bringing improper pressure on the company to pay a bona fide disputed debt. Of late, we have seen several instances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest of the creditors, but also the interests of public at large. 35. We have referred to the above aspects at some length to impress upon the Company Courts to be more vigilant so that its medium would not be misused. A Company Court, therefore, should act with circumspection, care and caution and examine as to whether an attempt is made to pressurize the company to pay a debt which is substantially disputed. A Company Court, therefore, should be guarded from such vexatious abuse of the process and cannot function as a Debt Collecting Agency and should not permit a party to unreasonably set the law in motion, especially when the aggrieved party has a remedy elsewhere. 10. In view of the above discussion and decision, the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
