Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 541 - HC - Companies LawApplication for winding up - Non-payment of debt - Bona fide dispute or not - No reply to statutory notice - Charges of coercion in counter affidavit filed - Held that:- Any prudent company, which is not liable to pay the debt, is not expected to remain silent to a statutory notice. With respect to admission of debt under two letters dated December 29, 2009 and December 30, 2009, the counter-affidavit has raised vague pleas by stating that the said admission was made subject to reconciliation. However, in the additional counter-affidavit, the respondent has come out for the first time with the plea that the said two letters were issued under coercion. Also the respondent has come out with a vague plea that it used to issue undated cheques as security. There is no specific plea that the petitioner has misused one such cheque by presenting the same in bank for a sum of ₹ 2,18,64,235 putting July 20, 2011, as the date on which the cheque was issued. Admittedly, a criminal case under section 138 of the N. I. Act following the dishonour of the said cheque is filed and the same is pending before a criminal court. The plea of the respondent raised for the first time in the additional counter-affidavit that it has made over payment of ₹ 25,59,240 was not supported by any correspondence exchanged between the parties. For the first time, the respondent has disputed the two invoices dated July 12, 2008, for ₹ 2.47 crores and August 14, 2008, for ₹ 1.36 crores in the additional counter-affidavit only on the ground that they were not reflected in the VAT audit conducted by the State Government. It has not come out with any specific plea that those invoices were either fabricated or concocted. This court is of the opinion that the denial of debt by the respondent is not bona fide and that the same is a cloak or moonshine to evade payment of an admitted debt. Having admitted in categorical terms that it is liable to pay ₹ 1.50 crores subject, however, to reconciliation, the respondent cannot resile from the said admission and seek to deny the debt. The law is well-settled that where the debt is liable to be paid, a petition for winding up is maintainable even in the absence of precise quantification (see : Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries (P.) Ltd. [1971 (10) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Tweeds Garages Ltd. [1961 (11) TMI 37 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION ]. Though the respondent claims to be in good financial health, as it has failed to pay the admitted debt to the petitioner. - Application for winding up admitted.
|