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 ...
24 comments
Read more

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...
Post a Comment
Read more

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...
1 comment
Read more