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 examines winding-up petition, cites payment discrepancies, seeks further determination under Companies Act</h1> The court disposed of the petition for winding up and appointment of Official Liquidator under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act. It found ... Winding application under Section 433 and 434 of Companies Act - Interest amount not paid - Held that:- The debit note refers to a sum of ₹ 40,20,040/- as being the interest amount debited in respect of outstanding amount. In such circumstance, whether the amount as paid through the cheque dated 15.7.2012 has been received by the petitioner and has been accounted and when there is dispute with regard to fact as to whether the balance amount claimed as interest by the petitioner is due and payable, at this stage, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the respondents are unable to pay their debts. Even assuming for a moment that any amount is due and payable by the respondents to the petitioner and even if the proceedings for dishonour of cheque has been initiated against the respondents, the same would have to be litigated in an appropriate forum. -Decided against the petitioner. Issues:Petition under Sections 433 and 434 of Companies Act for winding up and appointment of Official Liquidator.Analysis:The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent for interior work, claiming a due amount of &8377; 40,20,040/-. The respondent acknowledged the debt but contended that the amount was already paid through cheques and only interest was outstanding. The respondent also raised concerns about the quality of work performed by the petitioner and intended to make a counterclaim. The petitioner issued a statutory notice demanding &8377; 45,66,741/-, including interest. The respondent disputed the claim, arguing that the entire principal amount had been paid, leaving only the disputed interest amount. The petitioner relied on returned cheques and a debit note to support their claim.The court noted the returned cheques but also observed that a subsequent cheque was issued by the respondent. The court highlighted the discrepancy regarding the interest amount claimed by the petitioner and whether it was actually due and payable. It concluded that at this stage, it couldn't determine the respondent's inability to pay debts. The court emphasized that if any amount was found due, it should be recovered in accordance with the law. Therefore, the court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue legal remedies as per the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
