9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u of the professional fee and that the respondent-Company was incorporated for the business of running hospital, nursing home, establishing medical stores and other matters connected therewith. The petitioner was also working in professional capacity as a doctor in the respondent-Company being a renowned orthopedic surgeon. According to the petitioner, as per ledger account maintained with the respondent-Company the unpaid professional fee as on 1.4.2015 and 23.2.2016 was Rs. 46,36,520/- and 35,44,918/-. Further case of the petitioner is that he has also not been paid the professional fee for operating 94 patients between 5.11.2012 to 17.3.2016 amounting to Rs. 34,50,000/- and the petitioner has also not been paid charges approximately Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner, the charges for use of the navigation machine and other dues amounting to Rs. 89,94,918/- inspite of statutory notice, therefore, a case of winding up of the respondent-Company on the ground of inability to pay debt under Section 433(e) is made out. He further submits that the company is running in loss, therefore, it is just and equitable to wind up the respondent- Company under Section 433(f) of the Act. 6/ As against this, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the prayer has submitted that the amount as claimed by the petitioner is not due and there is no document on record admitting the liability, therefore, it is not a case of winding up under Section 433(e) of the Act. He further submits that the respondent is running t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing debts due from a company. Clarifying the position, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a debt is bonafide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, court will not wind up the company. In the matter of IBA Health (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Info-Drive Systems SDN. BHD. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 553 the aforesaid position of law has been reiterated with further elaboration that the court should act with circumspection and examine whether winding up petition is used as ploy to pressurise company to pay substantially disputed debt and that the court has to ascertain whether refusal was due to reasonable cause or existence of bonafide dispute which can be adjudicated only by trial in civil court and if not so adjudicated, would cause serio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of amount does not oust jurisdiction of the Company Court. 10/ On examining the present case in the light of the aforesaid position in law, it is noticed that the petitioner is claiming that there is unpaid professional fee of Rs. 46,36,520/- and 35,44,918/- as on 1.4.2015 and 23.2.2016 and an amount of Rs. 34,50,000/- is due for operating 94 patients and Rs. 20 Lakhs towards the charges for carrying out the operation with the aid of his own navigation machine. Thus according to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 89,94,918/- is due and payable to the petitioner by the respondent-Company. This liability has been disputed by the respondent. The clear stand of the respondent in the reply before this Court is that no such amount is due and the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
