Secured creditor can file winding-up petition without giving up security. Court admission based on security insufficiency.

The court held that a secured creditor can maintain a winding-up petition without relinquishing security at the filing stage. The company's acknowledgment of debt and offer of additional security indicated insufficiency, allowing the petition's admission despite a civil suit. The court found the petition adequately disclosed the security's inadequacy, admitting the petition and setting a return date. The respondent's arguments were dismissed, affirming the petitioner's right to maintain the petition as a secured creditor without relinquishing security initially.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the petitioner, as a secured creditor, is entitled to maintain the petition for winding up without relinquishing the security.
2. Whether the company has failed to secure the petitioner's debt.
3. Whether the petition for winding up can be maintained despite the petitioner having filed a civil suit.
4. Whether the petition contains adequate disclosure regarding the sufficiency of the security.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement of Secured Creditor to Maintain Winding Up Petition Without Relinquishing Security

The principal point addressed was whether the petitioner, as a secured creditor, can maintain a winding-up petition without relinquishing its security. The court held that there is no merit in the respondent's submission that the secured creditor must relinquish the security before or at the time of filing the petition. Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, allows a secured creditor to present a winding-up petition. The court referenced the Division Bench decision in Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. v. Shree Arcee Steels (P.) Ltd., which affirmed that a secured creditor could petition for winding up without relinquishing security. The court emphasized that the stage for relinquishing security arises when the secured creditor seeks to prove the whole of his debt in the winding-up proceedings, not at the time of filing the petition.

Issue 2: Failure to Secure the Petitioner's Debt

The respondent argued that the petitioner has valuable security in the form of an equitable mortgage of immovable property, thus the company cannot be deemed to have failed to secure the debt. The court noted that the company had acknowledged its liability of Rs. 4.42 crores as of 1-4-1998, and the offer of additional security indicated the inadequacy of the existing security. Therefore, the court found that the company had substantial dues owing to the petitioner, justifying the admission of the petition.

Issue 3: Maintenance of Winding Up Petition Despite Civil Suit

The respondent contended that the petition should not be entertained as the petitioner had already filed a civil suit. The court held that the object of a winding-up petition is to realize the property of the company for distribution to all creditors. The filing of a civil suit by the petitioner to enforce its security does not preclude the maintenance of the winding-up petition. The court clarified that when the stage for proving the debt arises, the petitioner would need to prove for the balance due after realizing the security.

Issue 4: Adequate Disclosure Regarding Sufficiency of Security

The respondent claimed that the petition did not disclose whether the security was sufficient to meet the petitioner's dues. The court found that the acknowledgment of liability by the company and the offer of additional security indicated that the existing security was inadequate. The court concluded that the petition contained sufficient disclosure regarding the dues and the inadequacy of the security.

Conclusion:

The company petition was admitted and made returnable on 4-7-2001. The respondent waived service. The court found no merit in the respondent's contentions and upheld the petitioner's right to maintain the winding-up petition as a secured creditor without relinquishing its security at the filing stage.

---