9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (7) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Companies Act by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the appellant company. The ground on which the order was made is that the appellant failed to pay debts due to the respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the respondents and the objections .thereto by the appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8,000 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower court has recorded a volume of evidence and entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39 Bom. 47 it is stated that: "Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the company's real inability to pay just debts." The Company v. Rameswat AIR 1920 Cal. 1004 is another case to the effect that "When a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it cannot be said to have ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
