Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Praxis Inc. Versus. Nandhini Hotels (P.) Ltd.

2017 (1) TMI 685 - Karnataka High Court

Winding-up petition - non-payment of the 'Professional Fees' - maintainability of petition - Held that:- The agreement between the parties about the providing of 'Professional Services' cannot be said to have a smooth sailing at that point of time also and no final 'admitted liability' crystallized in favour of the petitioner - Firm towards the said amount. - The jurisdiction of winding-up of a Company cannot be exercised against a solvent Company, if the liability of the Respondent - Compan .....

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 petitioner - Firm to avail alternative remedy by way of a Civil Suit, the present winding- up petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. - CO. PETITION NO. 157/2015 - Dated:- 25-11-2016 - DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. For The Petitioner. : Mr. Sunil P. Prasad, Adv. For The Respondent : S.P. Kulkarni, Adv. ORDER 1. The petitioner - M/s. Praxis Inc. (hereinafter referred to as 'Firm' for short) which entered into a contract for providing Architectural Design services .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, vide Annexure J, dated 24/11/2014, claiming a sum of ₹ 99,08,205/- with 18% interest per annum, upon issuance of notice, the Respondent - Company has put in appearance and has filed the Statement of Objections before this Court on 28/07/2016. 3. The Respondent - Company has denied its liability to pay the aforesaid sum of ₹ 99,08,205 and has submitted before the Court that the said petitioner - Firm did not give the complete services for Phase-II .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase-II of the project of the Respondent - Company. 4. Paragraph 7 of the said Statement of Objections is quoted below for ready reference- "7. It is submitted that with respect to the averments made at para-13 of the petition that, out of the aforesaid items agreed under Work Orders the balance amount of ₹ 99,08,205/- remained as outstanding amount as on the date of petition etc., are all erroneous and wrong and also equally false. The said averments cannot be accepted in law in as mu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f Objections filed by them, there is no 'admitted liability' on the part of the Respondent - Company to pay the said claimed amount of ₹ 99,08,205/- and therefore, the present winding-up petition deserves to be dismissed. He also submitted that the Respondent - Company is a 'going-concern' and has regularly paid its taxes under the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, the Respondent - Company cannot be said to be commercially insolvent and the liability in question being a ' .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version