Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        1995 (11) TMI 307 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court denies winding-up petition against S.A. Builders, highlighting arbitration clause and dismissing claim as not admitted debt. The court refused to wind up S.A. Builders as the company demonstrated a substantial defense against the petitioner's claim for payment of shares. The ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                              Court denies winding-up petition against S.A. Builders, highlighting arbitration clause and dismissing claim as not admitted debt.

                              The court refused to wind up S.A. Builders as the company demonstrated a substantial defense against the petitioner's claim for payment of shares. The court found the amount claimed was not an admitted debt, noting the company's solvency and ability to pay debts. The dispute resolution clause requiring arbitration was highlighted, and the court directed the parties to pursue civil remedies, as the petitioner had not followed the agreement's terms for selling the shares. The court dismissed the winding-up petition, emphasizing the company's viability and rejecting the petitioner's claim as an admitted debt.




                              Issues Involved:
                              1. Petition for winding up under sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.
                              2. Alleged failure of the company to pay the petitioner the agreed amount for shares.
                              3. Preliminary objections raised by the company regarding the existence of debt and compliance with the agreement.
                              4. Dispute resolution through arbitration as per the agreement.
                              5. Determination of whether the company is commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts.
                              6. Evaluation of the company's defense and whether the debt is bona fide disputed.

                              Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Petition for Winding Up:
                              The petitioner, Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., filed a petition under sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the winding up of S.A. Builders. The petitioner claimed that the company failed to pay Rs. 1,68,52,000 for ten lakh shares of Indian Acrylics Ltd. (IAL) as agreed upon in a tripartite agreement.

                              2. Alleged Failure to Pay:
                              The petitioner alleged that the company neglected to make the payment despite reminders and a statutory notice of winding up. The petitioner argued that the company was unable to pay its admitted debts and thus liable to be wound up under the Act.

                              3. Preliminary Objections by the Company:
                              The company raised several preliminary objections:
                              - No debt was due from the company to the petitioner.
                              - The petitioner did not comply with the terms of the agreement, particularly the buy-back clause.
                              - The petition was filed without selling the shares to any other person as per the agreement.
                              - Non-joinder of necessary parties and existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement.

                              4. Dispute Resolution through Arbitration:
                              The company contended that disputes arising under the agreement were referable to arbitration, and the petitioner had not taken recourse to the arbitration clause. The agreement stipulated that any question arising under it would be referred to three arbitrators, one appointed by each party and an umpire appointed by the two arbitrators.

                              5. Commercial Insolvency and Ability to Pay Debts:
                              The company denied being commercially insolvent, stating it earned a profit of more than five crores in 1994. The company argued that the petition was a pressure tactic to force it to buy the shares.

                              6. Evaluation of the Company's Defense:
                              The court considered whether the company's defense was in good faith, substantial, and likely to succeed in law. The court found that:
                              - The petitioner did not offer the shares for sale within the stipulated time to one of the promoters, R.K. Garg.
                              - No definite amount or interest payable was settled during the 90-day period.
                              - The petitioner did not sell the shares in the open market and claim the loss, as allowed by the agreement.
                              - The petitioner's claim could not be considered an admitted debt without following the agreement's terms.

                              Conclusion:
                              The court concluded that the company had raised a substantial defense, and the amount claimed by the petitioner could not be considered an admitted debt. The court noted that the company was a going concern and able to pay its admitted debts. Consequently, the court refused to entertain the winding-up petition and relegated the parties to the remedy of a civil suit, given that the petitioner still held the shares in question. The company petition was disposed of accordingly.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found