9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent company. It is only where the respondent company raises a bonafide dispute then no winding up petition would lie. The respondent company has failed to show any bonafide dispute. Accordingly admit the present petition. The Official Liquidator attached to this court is appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. He is directed to take over all the assets, books of accounts and records of the respondent-company forthwith. The citations be published in the Delhi editions of the newspapers ‘Statesman’ (English) and ‘Veer Arjun’ (Hindi), as well as in the Delhi Gazette, at least 14 days prior to the next date of hearing. - CO.PET. 504/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2018 - MR. JAYANT NATH J. Petitioner Through Mr. Rajeev Kr. Jha and Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) He states that some of the invoices which have been attached to the petition are not drawn in favour of the respondent Company but are drawn in favour of some other entity. Hence, he submits that there is no liability of the respondent in this regard. He states that at best, there can be a liability of ₹ 50,000/- only which the respondent Company is ready to pay. (ii) He further states that the alleged acknowledgment which is relied upon by the petitioner is misplaced as the said document is not signed by the any authorised representative of the respondent. He submits that there is no Narender working in the respondent Company. Hence, he submits that the acknowledgement has no force in law. (iii) He further submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from other vendors and hence, the stopped payment instructions were issued. It becomes manifest that the cheque was actually issued by the respondent against supply of goods and not as security as has been wrongly claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Regarding the plea that goods were not supplied by the respondent, no details are given. The plea is bereft of details and has no merits. 6. Regarding acknowledgment, a perusal of the acknowledgement issued by the respondent would show that on the ledger account a stamp of the respondent company has been affixed and Mr. Narender has signed it acknowledging the debt of ₹ 5,71,640/- on 14.01.2012. In the reply filed the respondent s plea is that there is no person by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en no winding up petition would lie. Reference in this context may be had to the judgement of the Supreme Court in IBA Health (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Info-Drive Systems Sdn.Bhd., (2010) (4) CompLJ 481 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:- 17. The question that arises for consideration is that when there is a substantial dispute as to liability, can a creditor prefer an application for winding-up for discharge of that liability? In such a situation, is there not a duty on the Company Court to examine whether the company has a genuine dispute to the claimed debt? A dispute would be substantial and genuine if it is bona fide and not spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived. The Company Court, at that stage, is not expected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the liquidator for this purpose, if required. The Official Liquidator shall also endeavour toprepare a complete inventory of all the assets of the respondent-company when the same are taken over; and the premises in which they are kept shall be sealed by him. At the same time, he may also seek the assistance of a valuer to value all assets to facilitate the process of winding up. It will also be open to the Official Liquidator to seek police help in the discharge of his duties, if he considers it appropriate to do so. The Official Liquidator to take all further steps that may be necessary in this regard to protect the premises and assets of the respondent-company. 12. However, in the interest of justice, I suspend the above order for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
