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>Court grants winding up petitions, prioritizes employee claims, appoints Official Liquidator, disregards parallel Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings.</h1> <h3>Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. Versus Express (Malayalam) (P.) Ltd.</h3> The court allowed both winding up petitions against the respondent company, finding it incapable of paying debts. The court prioritized employee claims, ... Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up Issues:1. Winding up petition filed by a bank due to insolvency and inability to pay debts.2. Winding up petition filed by an individual creditor for non-repayment of debt.3. Company's objections to the winding up petitions based on disputed claims.4. Court's preliminary order and publication of winding up notice.5. Legal dispute over the maintainability of winding up proceedings due to parallel proceedings at Debt Recovery Tribunal.Analysis:1. The first winding up petition was filed by a bank against the respondent company, alleging insolvency and inability to pay debts exceeding assets. The company had a paid-up capital of Rs. 30 lakhs but owed nearly Rs. 49 lakhs to the bank, leading to commercial insolvency. The court found the company incapable of paying debts under section 433(e) of the Companies Act.2. The second winding up petition was filed by an individual creditor who had not been repaid Rs. 1 lakh advanced to the company. Despite obtaining a decree through legal proceedings, the creditor could not recover the amount, leading to the petition for winding up under section 433(e) of the Companies Act.3. The respondent company disputed the claims in both petitions, arguing against insolvency and disputing the amount owed to the bank. The company contended that the bank's claim was incorrect and challenged the maintainability of the winding up petitions, citing ongoing proceedings at the Debt Recovery Tribunal.4. The court issued a preliminary order after considering the claims and contentions, finding the company's objections not bona fide. The court directed the publication of winding up notices in newspapers and noted the company's failure to pay off debts despite opportunities provided.5. A legal dispute arose over the maintainability of the winding up proceedings due to parallel proceedings at the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The respondent company argued that since the bank had approached the Tribunal for debt recovery, the winding up proceedings should not proceed. However, the court held that the reliefs sought at the Tribunal were different from those in winding up proceedings, allowing both processes to continue simultaneously. The court emphasized that the grounds for winding up, including insolvency and inability to pay debts, were distinct from mere debt recovery proceedings.In conclusion, the court allowed both winding up petitions, finding the company incapable of paying debts and ordering its winding up. The court prioritized the claims of employees over other creditors, appointing the Official Liquidator to take over the company's assets and records for proper adjudication of claims and protection of interests.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
