Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Stantech Project Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Nicco Corporation Ltd.

2015 (9) TMI 452 - SUPREME COURT

Winding-up petition - unable to pay the dues - the claim was for a sum of ₹ 3,54,500/- together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum together with ₹ 1,09,958/- deducted by the Respondent on account of the tax deducted at source (TDS). These amounts have remained unpaid even after the receipt of the statutory notice. - Held that:- The Company Judge had no alternative but to proceed for Winding up of the Respondent Company since it had failed to discharge the admitted de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

R>
The Respondent has abused the judicial process in order to delay the discharge of an acknowledged debt for almost a quarter of a century, in which period it has continued in business.

These Appeals are allowed. - Respondent to directed to pay the said admitted dues - All these amounts are payable within 45 days from today. No extension for payment shall be granted since the accommodation and the indulgence granted by the learned Company Judge has been abused by the Respondent. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e facts, succinctly stated, are that the Appellant had filed Winding-up petitions against the Respondent on the asseveration that debts admittedly payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner had remained outstanding even subsequent to the issuance of a statutory Notice issued under Section 434 of the Companies Act. 1956. Keeping in perspective the nature of the question of law raised before us, we need not go into the genesis or the characteristics of the contract between the parties. So far as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rom 16.8.2002, was so done in order to avert the ordering of an advertisement/citation in the proceedings by the Company Judge. In Civil Appeal No. 7374 of 2005, the claim was for a sum of ₹ 8,08,314/- together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum together with ₹ 1,24,984/- which had been deducted by the Respondent on account of TDS. It appears that these amounts were admitted by the Respondent in terms of its letter dated 8.2.2000 as also in the Affidavit of the Manag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ments commencing from 6.8.2002. It had been made clear by the Company Judge vide Orders dated 24.7.2002 that if these payments were not made, the Winding-up petitions would stand admitted and it would be open to the Appellant to pray for advertisement/citation. A fortnight later, i.e. on 8.8.2002, the foregoing Orders were modified by the consent of the parties to the effect that it would be open to the Respondent to pay off the dues together with the interest accrued in eight monthly installmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion of the order, which were assailed before this Court. We had disposed of the Special Leave Petition on 3.3.2003 thus:- Whether such application for modification is at all maintainable is a question which is expressly left along with other questions for being decided by the learned Single Judge if and when such application for modification is filed by the Respondent . 4. Thereafter, a detailed Order came to be passed by the learned Company Judge on 22.8.2003 rejecting the prayer for re-hearin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e conduct of the Respondent not to be bona fide. The second salvo of litigation, therefore, proved to be unsuccessful so far as the Respondent is concerned as the petition/application was dismissed by the Company Judge with costs assessed at 600 GMs. Thereafter, these Orders dated 24.7.2002 came to be assailed once again before the Division Bench, which then passed the Orders now impugned before us. The Division Bench was of the view that the concession was made mistakenly by the counsel appeari .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Respondent had, in fact, displayed legal sagacity in getting the winding-up of the Company postponed and avoided the publication in the Winding-up petition by praying for and obtaining leave to pay the debt in installments. Had he not done so, the Respondent would have had to pay the entire debit at once or face certain commercial death as a consequence publication/citation of Winding-up petition. It is note worthy that the Respondent so is transacting business even today. The Division Bench ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version