Statutory demand enforcement: winding-up petitions admitted where demands were specified and debts not bona fide disputed, leading to liquidation steps.
The text examines contention on maintainability of winding-up petitions where statutory demand notices specified liquidated sums and the payment period expired; the governing principle applied is that a company is deemed unable to pay its debts when statutory demand requirements are complied with and claimed debts are not shown to be bona fide disputed on substantial grounds. Factual findings included partial payment by one respondent and absence of full discharge of demands; consequence recorded is admission of the petitions and appointment of the Official Liquidator as provisional liquidator, with proceedings continuing.
Issues: Whether the learned single Judge erred in admitting and directing proceedings on the Company Petitions for winding up of the appellant-companies and appointing the Official Liquidator as provisional liquidator.
Analysis: The petitions were presented after service of statutory demand notices specifying liquidated sums and after expiry of the period provided for payment. The notices identified specific amounts and subsequent correspondence showed partial payment by one appellant and no full discharge of the demands within the stipulated time. The statutory framework concerning grounds for winding up and the rule on when a company is deemed unable to pay its debts were applied to assess maintainability. Authorities on bona fide disputed debts were considered, but the factual matrix established that the amounts claimed were specified, not shown to be bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, and the statutory demand requirements were complied with before presentation of the petitions. It was also noted that the Official Liquidator had taken charge and further proceedings were in progress.
Conclusion: The admission of the Company Petitions and appointment of the Official Liquidator as provisional liquidator were proper; the appeals are dismissed and the impugned orders are upheld in favour of the respondent.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
