Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1966 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1966 (3) TMI 19 - SC - Companies LawWhether, if proceedings were taken against the company under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the company was deprived of the opportunity to pay the sum due to the respondent or to secure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor within the meaning of section 434(1)(a) of the Indian Companies Act? Whether there was a bona fide dispute in respect of the liability of the company to the joint family? Held that:- No doubt courts have held, in our view rightly, that a statutory notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Indian Companies Act shall strictly comply with the provisions of the said section. In the instant case the receiver asked the debtor to pay the amount due to the joint family to the Additional Collector, Bombay, towards the income-tax due from the joint family. The debtor was not only not asked to do something which was legally prohibited but was asked to comply with the Collector's requisition under section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. By not doing so, the company clearly neglected to pay the amount within the meaning of section 434 of the Indian Companies Act. In the present case, Narayanlal Bansilal was not only the karta of the joint family but was also the chairman of the board of directors of the company. In the partition suit he filed an affidavit wherein he stated from which it is manifest that the alleged dispute was not bona fide but was only a part of a scheme of collusion between the company and the karta of the joint family. There are, therefore, no merits in any of the contentions raised by the company. Appeal dismissed.
|