Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (3) TMI 1642

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t and cogent material on record to hold that the substratum of the respondent-Company has eroded. The petitioner has also raised a plea in respect of discrepancy in the TDS amount and the payment made but such disputed discrepancy alone is not sufficient to infer the debt or the inability to pay debt. In absence of any document of admitted liability or any undisputed document reflecting the debt due, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be proper in the facts of the present case to invoke the provisions of Section 433 of the Companies Act for winding up of the respondent-company. - Company Petition No.24/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2018 - SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had given the notice dated 23.6.2016 through the counsel under Section 433(e) (f) of the Act. Further case of the petitioner is that it is just and equitable to wind up the respondent-company because the image, goodwill and reputation of the Synergy Hospital has been tarnished on account of the ongoing dispute between the groups of directions and the business of the hospital has been adversely affected. Hence the present company petition has been filed. 3/ The respondents by filing the reply have denied the allegation made in the petition. They have also denied the liability to pay the amount to the petitioner and have raised the plea that the petitioner has been paid the charges due to him. 4/ By filing the rejoinder, the petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me Court in the matter of M/s. Madhusudan Gordhandas Co. Vs. Madhu Woolen Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1971 SC 2600 has held that the Company Court can refuse a petition for winding up of the Company when the claim of the petitioner is bonafide disputed by the Company and that the principles on which the court acts are; first that the defence of the Company is in good faith and one of the substance, secondly the defence is likely to succeed in point of law and thirdly the company adduces prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends. It has further been held that the mere fact that the company has suffered trading losses will not destroy its substratum unless there is no reasonable prospect of it ever making a profit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dispute as to liability for paymentof debt is bonafide substantial and not spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived. It has also been held that the Company Court always retains discretion but a party to a dispute should not be allowed to use the threat of winding up petition as a means of forcing the company to pay a bona fide disputed debt and that the company court at the stage of a winding up petition is not expected to hold a full trial of the matter. This Court also noting the above position in the matter of M/s. Alpha Packaging Ltd. Vs. M/s. Som Distelleries Ltd. vide order dated 12.11.2014 had dismissed the Company Petition No.15/1999 since the amount due in that case was not crystallized and there was a bonafide dispute with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been denied and it has been stated that no such amount of ₹ 89,94,918/- is due and payable to the petitioner. There is no document of admitting the liability on record. Though the petitioner is placing reliance upon the alleged ledger account for the period 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015 and 1.4.2015 to 23.2.2016 (Annexure P/1) but the said ledger account is not signed by any of the parties and is a disputed document, therefore, petitioner is required to lead evidence and establish the debt. In the present case the debt has been bonafidely disputed by the respondent. That apart the respondent is a running hospital and there is no sufficient and cogent material on record to hold that the substratum of the respondent-Company has eroded. The peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates