TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 orders winding up of respondent company due to determined debt, rejecting statutory bar argument.</h1> The court found the debt claimed by the petitioner to be determined, definite, and undisputed, justifying the winding up of the respondent company. The ... Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up Issues:1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case of a determined, definite, and undisputed debt to invoke winding up of the respondent company.2. Whether the petition is barred by section 10 of the Industrial Undertakings Act.3. Whether the petitioner, having obtained a decree under the Industrial Undertakings Act, can maintain this petition.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner claimed a debt of Rs. 13,76,333 from the respondent, which was certified and remained unpaid. The respondent failed to pay despite statutory notice and acknowledgment. No opposition was filed, and evidence supported the debt claim. The court found the debt determined, definite, and undisputed, warranting winding up.Issue 2:The respondent argued that the petition was barred by section 10 of the Industrial Undertakings Act. However, the court rejected this contention, stating that the Acts were not inconsistent, and the Industrial Undertakings Act did not override the Companies Act for winding up proceedings.Issue 3:The respondent contended that the petitioner's decree under the Industrial Undertakings Act precluded the winding-up petition. The court disagreed, stating the decree did not prevent the winding up for unpaid debts. The court held that the petitioner's inability to recover the debt did not hinder the winding-up process.The court emphasized the importance of the Companies Act in addressing insolvency issues and dismissed the respondent's arguments against winding up. The court allowed the petition, directing the winding up of the respondent company and the takeover of assets by the Official Liquidator. The court also mandated specific actions by the petitioner to comply with the winding-up order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
