1973 (1) TMI 51 - HC - Companies Law

Court upholds sanction on winding-up petition, company able to meet debts, thorough investigation required

The court held that the sanction granted by the Regional Director for filing the winding-up petition was valid. Despite the company's liabilities ... Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Application for Issues Involved:1. Whether the sanction accorded by the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Kanpur, under section 439(5) of the Companies Act was invalidRs.2. Whether the company is unable to meet its debtsRs.3. If issue No. (1) is not proved and issue No. (2) is proved, is the company liable to be wound upRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue No. 1:The court examined whether the sanction granted by the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Northern Region, Kanpur, to file the winding-up petition was valid. The order dated January 1, 1971, was produced and marked as exhibit P-17, with the signatures of the Regional Director being verified by the witness. The court held that the order granting sanction was in order, thus deciding issue No. 1 against the respondents.Issue No. 2:This issue centered on whether the company was unable to meet its debts. The petitioner's counsel argued that the balance-sheets showed continuous losses and an inability to meet liabilities. However, it was admitted by the petitioner's witness that no depositor, subscriber, or creditor had complained about unpaid claims. The Registrar of Companies based his opinion on the company's losses and the deficiency in asset value over liabilities. Despite the company's detailed explanation (exhibit P-16) showing a potential for profit, the Regional Director dismissed it without clear reasoning.The court noted that the explanation provided by the company was not properly considered or rebutted by the Registrar of Companies. The court emphasized that the legislative safeguard in section 439(6) of the Act requires a judicial consideration of the company's explanations before sanctioning a winding-up petition. The court found that the Regional Director mechanically granted the sanction without applying a judicial mind to the company's explanation.The court further noted that the company's balance-sheets showed decreasing losses and a profit in the year ending March 31, 1971. The court agreed with the respondent's argument that the subscriptions received from chit fund members do not become liabilities until the chits mature. The company had met its liabilities whenever they accrued, and no creditor had complained about unpaid debts.The court highlighted that section 434 of the Companies Act enumerates exigencies where a company is deemed unable to pay its debts, none of which were present in this case. The court referenced previous judgments, emphasizing that a company may have liabilities exceeding assets but still be able to meet creditor demands. The court concluded that the Registrar of Companies did not conduct a thorough investigation into the company's business and probable future income, which was necessary given the company's explanation.The court decided that the Registrar of Companies and the Regional Director did not correctly form the opinion that the company was unable to pay its debts. The mere fact that the company's liabilities exceeded its assets was insufficient to conclude that the company was unable to pay its debts. The court decided issue No. 2 in favor of the respondents.Issue No. 3:Given the decision on issue No. 2, the court concluded that the company was not liable to be wound up. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs.