TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Company's Winding-Up Application Granted Due to Insolvency & Ceased Operations</h1> <h3>Mrs. Meera Alva Versus Combined Power & Energy Systems (P.) Ltd.</h3> The court allowed the petitioner's application for winding up the respondent-company under sections 433(e) and 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956. The ... Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts Issues: Winding up of a company under sections 433(e) and 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 due to loss of substratum and inability to carry on business profitably.Analysis:The petitioner, a shareholder of the respondent-company, filed an application for winding up under sections 433(e) and 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, citing that the company had lost its substratum and could not operate profitably. The petitioner's husband and the managing director of the company provided evidence supporting the claim that the company ceased business since 1985, had significant liabilities exceeding assets, and was unable to pay debts or employee salaries. The absence of balance sheets since 1985 and the auditor resigning due to lack of remuneration further emphasized the company's dire financial situation. The company's legal counsel acknowledged the lack of grounds for the company's survival.In determining the grounds for winding up, the court referred to legal precedents such as the case of D. Davis and Co. Ltd. v. Brunswick (Australia) Ltd. and Cine Industries and Recording Co. Ltd., emphasizing the importance of assessing whether there is a reasonable hope for the company to trade profitably. Citing Syndicate Bank v. Printers all (P.) Ltd., the court reiterated that when a company's substratum is lost or its business becomes impossible, winding up is considered just and equitable.Based on the evidence presented and legal principles, the court concluded that the respondent-company's situation warranted winding up. The official liquidator was directed to take charge of the company's assets, recover debts, and serve the winding-up order on the company and its directors. The petitioner was instructed to advertise the winding-up order in a newspaper and provide a copy to the Registrar of Companies within specified timelines. Consequently, the company petition for winding up was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
