Skip to main content

When Debt Is Undisputed Court Need Not Interfere

Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. vs Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt ltd, the division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice MS Sonak has held that once the debt owed by a debtor company is established as undisputed then the court shall wind up the particular company.

This was held while the bench was hearing an appeal against an order dated June 28, 2016 by the Company judge admitting the winding up petition against the appellant company and ordering the advertisement thereof in accordance with provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies Court Rules, 1959. Although there is no dispute that the appellant company owes the respondent an amount of Rs.90.90 crores, the appellant company has contended that the respondents owe them Rs.152.57 crores in damages on “account of certain acts of omission and commission on part of the respondents.” 

Zal Adhyarujina argued on behalf of the appellant company, he submitted that the respondents ought to have sold the 20 lakh shares of Gitanjali Gems Ltd. that had been deposited by his clients as security. He further argued that the respondents had agreed to sell all the pledged shares in a meeting held on March 14, 2013 hence there could be no “legal justification” to suspend sale of shares from March 22 as a result of which only 2.97 lakh Gitanjali shares.

Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar who appeared for the respondents in the case argued that his clients were not obligated to sell these shares under any agreement and in light of the letter by the Economic Offences Wing(EOW) asking the respondents to refrain from dealing with Gitanjali Shares since the appellant’s criminal involvement through these shares was being investigated, the suspension in sale was justified.

In Madhusudan Gordhandhas the apex court had held that “If any debt is bona fide disputed and defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company. But when debt is undisputed the court will not act upon a defence that the company has ability to pay the debt but the company chooses not to pay the particular debt. Further, when there is no doubt that the company owes the creditor a debt entitling him to a winding up order but the exact amount of debt is disputed, the court will nevertheless make a winding up order without requiring the creditor to quantify debt precisely.” 

Accepting the arguments made by the respondent (creditor), the bench upheld the order of the Company judge to admit the winding up petition and dismisse...


Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/bombay-hc-refuses-interfere-winding-petition-holds-debt-undisputed-court-need-not-interfere/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen
21 comments
Read more

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le
1 comment
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a
10 comments
Read more