9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lips. The deposit of provident fund is also a statutory obligation and the failure to do so would invite proceedings by the concerned authorities. Insofar as the other claims are concerned, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned order dated 12.11.2018 holding that the same are subject matter of some controversy. It is settled law that proceedings under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act would lie only in respect of debts that are admittedly due. A company is not liable to be wound up under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act in respect of debts that are disputed. However, the company s defence as to the claim of an admitted debt must be bonafide and not a moonshine defence. In the present case, it cannot be accepted that the contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN For the Appellant : Ms Neha Gupta and Mr Rishabh Pant, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr Nilesh Jain, Advocate. ORDER VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning orders dated 12.11.2018 and 20.12.2018 (collectively referred to as the impugned orders ) passed by the learned Company Court disposing of the petition filed under Sections 434 and 439 read with Section 433(b), (e), (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter the Companies Act ). 2. The appellant is an ex-employee of the respondent company and had sought winding up of the respondent, principally, on the ground that it had failed to pay his admitted dues. 3. The appellant had joined the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontroversy and had noted that by an email dated 09.03.2009, the respondent had confirmed that a sum of ₹ 15,96,164/- was payable to the appellant, which included salaries for the months of August 2008 to December 2008. Since the admitted dues were not discharged despite service of notice, the learned Company Court admitted the appellant s company petition and directed that citations be issued in Delhi Editions of the newspaper Statesman (English) and Veer Arjun (Hindi) as well as the Delhi Gazette. The Official Liquidator was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator to take further steps in accordance with law. However, the learned Company Court kept the said order dated 12.11.2018 in abeyance to enable the respondent to pay the admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. She submitted that the salary slips issued to the appellant clearly indicated that the respondent had deducted income tax at source (TDS) and the appellant had also filed its income tax returns on the said basis. However, the income tax authorities had raised a demand as the TDS deducted by the respondent was not deposited. Thus, no credit for the same was granted by the income tax authorities. She earnestly contended that neither the salary slips placed on record nor the amounts paid by the respondent are disputed. She also handed over an income tax demand raised, which indicates that a demand of ₹ 56,65,080/- has been raised by the Income tax Authorities. 13. In addition, she also submitted that the appointment letter clearly ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, the company s defence as to the claim of an admitted debt must be bonafide and not a moonshine defence. In the present case, we are unable to accept that the controversy raised by the respondent is, ex facie, untenable or a moonshine defence. Thus, we find no infirmity with the impugned orders passed by the learned Company Court except to the limited extent that the appellant s claim regarding TDS and statutory dues has not been included in the admitted dues. 18. It is the respondent s case that, in fact, it had deposited a sum of ₹ 37,17,202/- in respect of Previous Year ending 31.03.2009 relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-2010. The respondent also claims that the said amount was deposited within the prescribed period and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same. The learned counsel for the respondent states, on instructions, that the amount of outstanding provident fund will be paid to the appellant along with interest within a period of four weeks from date, if the same is not deposited with the concerned authorities. 22. According to the appellant, a sum of ₹ 3,50,400/- was required to be deposited by the respondent with the PF authorities. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that a sum of ₹ 2,62,800/- was required to be deposited as PF in terms of the salary slips placed on record. The difference between the amount claimed by the appellant and the respondent pertains to the month of December 2008. According to Mr Jain, learned counsel for the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
