1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court dismisses winding-up petition due to delay and ongoing business; failure to pursue civil suit promptly cited.</h1> The court dismissed the winding-up petition under sections 433(e) and (f), 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, due to the petitioner's extended delay ... Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up Issues:Petition for winding up under sections 433(e) and (f), 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 due to non-payment of dues by respondent company.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered proprietary firm, filed a petition seeking the winding up of the respondent company, engaged in the production of crockery and potteries, for failing to pay an outstanding amount for material purchased. The petitioner alleged that despite admitting the liability to pay, the respondent company did not settle the dues, leading to the petitioner sending a statutory notice demanding payment. The petitioner contended that the respondent company's failure to acknowledge the notice prompted the winding-up petition.The court noted that the respondent company did not dispute its liability to pay the outstanding bills and acknowledged the debt multiple times. However, the petitioner had not pursued a civil suit for recovery, opting instead to grant extensions and engage in meetings with the respondent company. The court highlighted that the bill was dated 16-8-1998, and the petition was filed over six years later, potentially exceeding the limitation period for filing a civil suit.Considering the delay in filing the petition, the court emphasized that the right to recover the debt might be barred by limitation. Additionally, the court exercised discretion in winding up a company, especially when the respondent company did not deny its liability, and the petitioner delayed legal action. Ultimately, the court found it inappropriate to order the winding up of the respondent company, especially since it was described as a running concern.In conclusion, the court dismissed the winding-up petition, citing the extended delay in filing, potential limitation issues, and the ongoing nature of the respondent company's business as reasons for the decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
