TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 are its directors. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case is that by letter dated September 17, 1981, the petitioner company came to be appointed for making arrangements for security guards at the factory premises of the first respondent company. The security arrangements came into effect from January 23, 1981, and the security arrangements made would cost a monthly payment of Rs. 2,950 to the respondent company. The security unit provided by the petitioner company consisted of five security guards, one reliever and one head guard, total being seven persons in all. After this arrangement, there appears to have been some differences between the petitioner company and the respondent company, and the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more vigilant. It is further stated in the reply that the security guards employed by the petitioner company took away the key bunch of the factory premises resulting in loss of machine hours in one shift on February 24, 1982. The respondent company was compelled to break open the locks at the factory premises and replace fresh locks on the same. This was also brought to the notice of the petitioner company. The respondent company has claimed Rs. 1,500 as the loss in machine hours and other losses connected therewith. Again on July 4, 1982, its electric heater fabricated by the respondent company was stolen and a time-piece also had been stolen. In regard to this, the petitioner company accepted liability and when payment was made, the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormally entertain the petition leaving the parties to settle the disputes in an appropriate civil court having jurisdiction. This court under section 433 of the Act acquires jurisdiction only when a debt is admitted though the quantum of the debt may be in dispute. If a defence is put forward by the respondent company in respect of which the winding-up order is sought, this court has to examine whether that defence is taken bona fide and it is legally tenable. Having already adverted to the facts in this behalf, I need not repeat them. I am convinced, the respondent company has an arguable case in regard to its defence. Whether, ultimately, on facts proved or not proved, it succeeds, is not a matter which this court should decide. An ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
