Court orders winding up of respondent-company under Companies Act, emphasizing arbitration clauses don't bar petition.

The court allowed the petition for winding up the respondent-company under sections 433(e), 434(1)(a), and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. Despite the respondent's failure to appear and contest the petition, the court admitted it. The court appointed the official liquidator to oversee the company's assets and properties, with the winding-up order to be published in specified newspapers and the Official Gazette of the State of Punjab. The court determined that the arbitration agreement in the hire-purchase agreement did not bar the petition, emphasizing that arbitration clauses do not automatically exclude the court's jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues:
Petition for winding up under sections 433(e), 434(1)(a), and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 based on hire-purchase agreement default and dishonored cheques.

Analysis:
The petitioner-company filed a petition seeking winding up against the respondent-company under sections 433(e), 434(1)(a), and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, due to default in payment as per the hire-purchase agreement. The respondent-company had approached the petitioner for hiring equipment, and an agreement was reached where the equipment was provided on a hire-purchase basis. Despite repeated defaults in payment, notices, and dishonored cheques, the respondent failed to settle the outstanding amount. The petitioner claimed a due amount of Rs. 15,01,017 as of 30-11-1998, and after serving a statutory notice, the petition was filed.

The court issued a show-cause notice to the respondent regarding the petition for winding up. Despite the service of notices, the respondent failed to appear, leading to the court admitting the petition. The court ordered the publication of the petition in specified newspapers and gazettes while allowing creditors to intervene before the next hearing date. Subsequent hearings were adjourned due to the non-appearance of the respondent.

The petitioner's case was supported by documentary evidence, including the hire-purchase agreement and dishonored cheques. The respondent's failure to contest the petition or provide a bona fide defense was noted. The court deliberated on whether the arbitration agreement in the hire-purchase agreement could bar the petition, citing a previous judgment that clarified arbitration clauses do not automatically oust the court's jurisdiction. Since the respondent's registered office fell within the court's jurisdiction and no defense was presented, the court concluded that the petition was valid.

Consequently, the court allowed the petition for winding up the respondent-company, appointing the official liquidator to take charge of the company's assets and properties. The order for winding up was to be published in specified newspapers and the Official Gazette of the State of Punjab as per legal requirements.

---