9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for winding up of the respondent company. 2. Learned advocate Mr. M.H. Pathak for the appellant contended that the learned Company Judge has committed error in refusing to entertain the petition for winding up of the respondent company. 3. He contended that the learned Company Judge ought to have appreciated that the respondent Company is closed and it has no operation. The balance sheet on record of the Court which was prior to 31/3/2012 demonstrates no revenue from the operation of the Company. He contended that the appellant has produced balance sheet and other materials on record to show that respondent company is completely closed. However, the learned Company Judge did not even refer to any material and to deal with the contentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciple of law. Therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned advocate Ms. V.A. Parikh appearing for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Company Judge and submitted that order passed by the learned Company Judge is just and proper, therefore, no interference is required by this Court and appeal may be dismissed. 8. Except that no other submissions has been made by either parties in support of their respective case. 9. We have heard learned counsels for the respective parties at length and in great detail. We have also perused the judgement and order passed by the learned Company Judge. The learned Company Judge, while passing the order, has made following observations in para Nos. 11 & 12, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there exists a genuine dispute qua 18% interest claimed in this petition on behalf of the petitioner. The agreement indicative of 18% interest is not coming forward anywhere or rather it can be said that there is a clear indisputable fact that there exists no agreement which could legitimately indicate that there was ever agreed rate of interest of 18%, as sought to be raised in this petition. The documents in the form of Annexures C to H and M from page 22 onwards would clearly indicate that the different rate of interest were mentioned at different time. Moreover, the averments made in the plaint attention of the Court whereon was drown, is required to be set out as under: "13. The plaintiff states that though the Defendant was li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court, then the petition is required to be dismissed. (iv) The authority cited at the bar in case of Vijay Industries (supra) is also of no avail to the petitioner as the facts in that case clearly indicate that there was absolutely no dispute qua the agreed rate of interest, whereas in the instant case, the rate of interest could not have been said to have been agreed at any point of time as the very basic document which would have been in support thereof is not available and therefore this Court is unable to accept the contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the interest dispute would not be available for non suiting the petitioner in winding up proceeding. On the contrary, the Court is more than convinced so far as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
