TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute [1986] 4 SCC 31, and (2) the mere fact that the Company Petition No. 540 of 2000 has been admitted by itself does not furnish a ground for admission of the company petition. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has raised bona fide dispute to the claim and therefore no case for admission of company petition was made out. 4. We shall refer to the respondent herein as the petitioner and the appellant herein as the company. According to the petitioner, it sold, supplied and delivered to the company gold bars for the period from 14th August, 1999 to 30th August, 2000 under different invoices aggregating to Rs. 31,36,200. The said goods were received by the company without any demur as regards the price, quality and/or quantity thereof. The company issued seven cheques dated 7th April, 2001 for aggregating Rs. 31,36,200. When the said cheques were deposited for realistion, all the cheques were dishonoured. The petitioner made many requests for payment of the due amount but the company negated to discharge its liability. The petitioner then gave a statutory notice dated 15th January, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for winding up, he can be said to have decided something that the petition should not be dismissed but it is too much to say that such order of the admission of winding up petition and advertisement must be supported by adequate reasons since such an order is appealable. The admission of the company petition by the Company Judge only discloses that the petitioner has been able to make out, prima facie case and the case needed to be tried. The Company Judge in that situation only takes the prima facie view of the petition and the materials placed before him and feels that the materials placed before him would not justify summarily dismissal of the petition and that more materials, more inquiry and more investigation shall be necessary before the decision is taken whether the petition should be allowed or should be dismissed. The order of admission of company petition and advertisement thereof must only be read to that effect. Looked from that angle we find that the Company Judge assigned two reasons while admitting the company petition, namely, (1) that the company petition No. 540 of 2000 has already been admitted against the company and (2) in his opinion this company peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition is under an obligation to pass a speaking order an order recording in brief at least the reasons which weighed with the court in determining the salient questions raised by the parties to the action while dismissing or rejecting the petition. The observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 14 of the report with reference to the question aforenoted, we are afraid, cannot be made applicable as it is to a case such as this where a Company Judge admits the company petition. Needless to say a Writ Court or for that matter any other Court while disposing of the writ petition or proceeding, at the final stage or threshold, needs to state reasons, briefly or elaborately, in support of the order, so that aggrieved party knows the basis on which the Court determined the matter. The determination of any question of facts or law has to be supported by reasons. The order admitting the company petition does not determine the facts and/or law. In the widest connotation of the term decision, an order admitting the company petition may be deemed to be decision to the extent that on prima facie consideration of the matter, the Company Judge forms the opinion that the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en dismissed, that order undoubtedly would have been subject to appeal. But there, according to him, the learned Judge would have decided something. But as the matter stands today, the learned Judge has not decided anything. Mr. Gupte would have been right if all that the learned Judge could do at this stage was to order advertisements. If he could neither dismiss the petition nor pass any other effective order, then undoubtedly it could be said that the learned Judge has not decided anything. But surely in this case the learned Judge has decided something and his decision is that the petition should not be dismissed, that the petition discloses a prima facie case, and that the case should be tried. Let us take an extreme case, if the petition was on the face of it not maintainable, if it was a creditor s petition and the petitioner was clearly not a creditor, and yet the learned Judge had given directions under rule 751 and not dismissed the petition, is it suggested that the company could not come in appeal and draw the attention of the Court of appeal to the fact that the petition was not clearly maintainable and should be dismissed. The position today is not to extreme as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, it has decided that the petition should not be dismissed, and that the petition discloses prima facie case and that the case should be tried. When the Division Bench of this Court observed that while admitting the company petition the Company Judge has decided something that the petition should not be dismissed, the expression decision has been used in its widest sense but that does not mean in our view that such decision determines the rights of the parties. As already noted by us above, the company petition if admitted may be a decision in the widest sense but surely it is not determination of the rights of the parties. By admitting winding up petition what follows is that the matter is worth consideration on further material and that it is not liable to be dismissed summarily. We, accordingly, overrule the first contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant. 11. Having considered the available material, we are satisfied that, prima facie , it cannot be said that the company has been able to raise bona fide dispute. It is not in dispute that the seven cheques aggregating sum of Rs. 31,36,200 were issued by the Company. It is also not in dispute that the said ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
