TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the winding up petitions were barred by the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 for want of a money lending licence, (ii) whether the objection regarding non-service of the statutory notice at the registered office was sustainable, and (iii) whether the other defences urged by the respondent, including collateral security and absence of valid presentment, defeated admission of the petitions.
Issue (i): whether the winding up petitions were barred by the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 for want of a money lending licence
Analysis: The debt was advanced through cheques and the respondent later acknowledged liability and issued post-dated cheques towards repayment. The Court held that the present winding up proceedings were not suits for recovery of money and that section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, which disables a court from passing a decree in favour of an unlicensed money-lender in an applicable suit, did not control company petitions for winding up. The respondent also failed to place any material showing that the petitioner was carrying on the business of money lending. Reliance was placed on earlier proceedings between the parties where the same objection had already been rejected.
Conclusion: The objection based on the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 was rejected and the petition was maintainable.
Issue (ii): whether the objection regarding non-service of the statutory notice at the registered office was sustainable
Analysis: The record showed issuance of statutory notices at the registered office address as well as at the administrative address. The respondent had replied to one of the notices without raising any objection to service. The Court held that the service objection was contrary to the admitted record and could not be raised for the first time at the hearing.
Conclusion: The objection to service of statutory notice failed.
Issue (iii): whether the other defences urged by the respondent, including collateral security and absence of valid presentment, defeated admission of the petitions
Analysis: The Court treated the pleas that the cheques were only collateral security and that presentment was invalid because the signatory had died as already rejected in earlier proceedings involving the same respondent. The Court also noted that the CDR proposal had failed and that the respondent remained heavily indebted and unable to pay its debts.
Conclusion: The remaining defences were rejected and did not prevent admission of the petitions.
Final Conclusion: The company petitions were admitted, the intervenors were allowed to join, and the petitions were directed to proceed along with the connected company petition, with advertisement and ancillary directions issued.
Ratio Decidendi: A winding up petition founded on dishonoured cheques and acknowledgment of liability is not barred by the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 merely because the petitioner is alleged to have advanced a loan without a money lending licence, where no material shows that the petitioner was carrying on the business of money lending and the proceeding is not a suit for recovery of the debt.
TaxTMI 
