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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the winding-up petition should be advertised under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 on the grounds of inability to pay debts and, alternatively, that it was just and equitable to wind up the company.
Analysis: The demand notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 did not justify advertisement once the company had disputed liability and thereafter complied with the arrangement recorded by the Court by making the agreed payments. The company was found to be a running concern, and the material placed did not establish destruction of its substratum, a continuing inability to pay debts, or facts sufficient at this stage to justify winding up on the just and equitable ground. The sequence of prior proceedings also supported the view that the petition was being used to pressurise the company rather than to establish a present case for winding up.
Conclusion: The grounds for directing advertisement of the winding-up petition were not made out, and the prayer was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Advertisement of a winding-up petition will not be ordered merely because a debt is disputed or a demand notice has not been met within time, where the company is a running concern, has complied with the court-accepted payment arrangement, and no present material establishes inability to pay debts or a just and equitable basis for winding up.