TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Act, 1940. The respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the main company petition, filed the company petition under sections 433( e ), 434(1)( a ) and ( f ) and 439(1)( b ) of the Companies Act, 1956, for an order of winding up of the petitioner-company herein and for other reliefs. Their case is that on August 19, 1988, an agreement was entered into between the parties at Calcutta in and by which the petitioner-company herein appointed the respondent as its consignee, storing and forwarding agent in the eastern region on the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement dated August 19, 1988. A copy of the said agreement has been filed as document No. 1. The said agreement was modified and/or supplemented by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice to the petitioner herein on January 9, 1992. On receipt of notice, the petitioner has filed the above company application to stay the main company petition till the dispute is resolved through arbitration under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. According to the petitioner, clause 22 of the agreement provides for the resolution of all disputes only by resort to arbitration and hence the respondent herein should only seek their remedy, if, any, by arbitration and hence, the company petition has, therefore, to be stayed pending adjudication under the Arbitration Act. The respondent herein filed a detailed counter-affidavit. According to them, this petition is not maintainable and there is no dispute in repayment of the balan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he agreement. The said clause reads as follows : "22. All disputes arising between the parties including interpretation hereof will be settled by arbitration in accordance with law. The venue of the arbitration shall be at Coimbatore." The petitioner herein has taken out this application stating that under the above clause, all disputes arising out of the contract will be settled by arbitration in accordance with law. It is, therefore, contended by Mr. P.K. Jamal Mohammed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the company petition filed for winding up of the petitioner-company should be stayed. Per contra, Mr. Chandramouleeswaran, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the matter arising for the decision in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a dispute in regard to the repayment of the balance amount due to the respondent herein. The petitioner has not given any details about the alleged disputes between the parties. The respondent has filed the company petition to wind up the petitioner-company under the provisions of the Companies Act since, according to the respondent, the petitioner herein is unable to pay its admitted debts. Inasmuch as the petitioner herein did not raise any bona fide dispute with regard to repayment of the balance of trade deposit to the respondent herein, there is, in my opinion, no question of the settling of any dispute by arbitration. The respondent herein, in my opinion, has rightly approached this court under the provisions of the Companies Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
