1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Rajasthan Court Orders Winding Up of Company, Debtor Must Repay Loan</h1> The High Court of Rajasthan ordered the provisional winding up of M/s. Amfort Agro Finance Limited and appointed a Liquidator. The Ex-Directors failed to ... Winding-up - Suits stayed on winding-up order Issues:1. Provisional winding up of a company and appointment of a Liquidator.2. Failure of Ex-Directors to file the statement of affairs as required by law.3. Non-payment of loan by a debtor to the company in liquidation.4. Defence of debtor regarding previous deposits made towards the loan amount.Analysis:1. The High Court of Rajasthan ordered the provisional winding up of M/s. Amfort Agro Finance Limited on July 14, 1995, and the final winding-up order was passed on January 13, 1997, appointing the applicant as the Liquidator.2. The company's main objective was to provide loans to agriculturists for various agricultural purposes. The Ex-Directors failed to submit the required statement of affairs under section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956, despite receiving notices.3. The debtor received a loan of Rs. 50,000 from the company for purchasing a thresher. Despite receiving notices for repayment, the debtor failed to pay the debt, leading to the application before the court.4. The debtor's defence was that they had made deposits totaling Rs. 13,500 on different dates, which they believed should be adjusted towards the loan amount. The Liquidator, in the rejoinder, acknowledged the deposits but insisted on the repayment of the remaining amount with interest.5. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the debtor to repay Rs. 65,937, which included the principal amount of Rs. 37,500 and accrued interest. The petitioner was granted pendente lite and future interest on the principal amount at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of filing the application. No costs were awarded in the judgment.