Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 284 - HC - Companies LawWinding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up – The petitioner-foreign company-VTL filed a petition for winding up of appellant company for outstanding dues payable towards price of goods supplied Rosebys Operations Ltd a 100% subsidiary of the appellant-Company - As per petitioner the appellant company committed the breach of guarantee, requiring the original petitioner to institute a suit against the company in High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench, Manchester, United Kingdom for recovery of the amount with interest - Appellant argued that it is capable to discharge its dues thus need not to be wounded & guarantee on the basis of which the dues were claimed was not approved by Reserve Bank of India as required under the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of any Foreign Security) Regulations, 2004 & also judgment by the Court of Queens Bench was an ex parte judgment and not enforceable in India - Whether winding up petition against appellant company on basis of judgment of UK Court was maintainable? - Held that:- A perusal of copy of judgment and decree of UK Court dated 20-11-2008 which is on record of the petition, shows that it was an ex parte decree. A suit in Indian Court shall not lie on basis of foreign judgment covered by section 13 of CPC as Clause (b) of Sec. 13 CPC says that a foreign Judgment shall not be conclusive where it has not been given on merit. As in the present case, it is seen that the UK Court judgment relied on for the purpose of the debt claimed as due in the winding up petition cannot be treated as conclusive in view of clear application of clause (b) and clause (d) of section 13. What emanates from the provisions of section 13 is that on the basis of a foreign judgment and decree covered under any of the clause of section 13 CPC, a suit in an Indian Court shall not lie to enforce the dues or a claim flowing. As in Smt. Satya (1974 (10) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT) and the position of law in which the Foreign Judgment is a subject matter, if any of the clauses of section 13 of the CPC applies to the Foreign Judgment, it is not to be treated as conclusive. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that under the company jurisdictions also, the principles of sec. 13 will apply. Therefore, it is clear that the above mentioned UK Court judgment being ex parte and being not on merits, the same stands covered under clause (b) and clause (d) respectively. The same is not conclusive and do not have any binding effect in the Courts in India. In view of regulation 6, the deed of guarantee relied on by VTL is not approved by the Reserve Bank of India. Not only that, in its nature, it is open-ended guarantee in favour of a foreign company, which is prohibited in terms of the Regulation 6. It is in this context that clause (f) of section 13 of CPC gets attracted, when it provides that a foreign judgment can not be a conclusive judgment where it sustained a claim founded on breach of any law in force in India. It is well settled that the proceedings of winding up is not a recovery proceeding. Once it is demonstrated that the debt is subject to a bona fide dispute, the Court will not order for winding up. Thus, the appellant company has been able to raise a bona fide dispute and substantial defence. That being so, it cannot be said that it has failed or neglect to pay the dues claimed by the respondent. The winding up petition having been found to be devoid of merits, the company petition stands dismissed.
|