https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96551 A statutory demand under section 163(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 had to be signed personally by the creditor because the words "under his hand" were treated as deliberate and precise, and the demand signed by an agent was invalid. The company was also not proved unable to pay its debts, as the materials before the Court were insufficient and the debt had in any event been paid shortly after presentation of the petition. The winding-up petition was further found not to be bona fide, having been used as pressure rather than a genuine insolvency proceeding. The decision emphasised that serious statutory consequences require strict compliance with the prescribed form. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 1931 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:25:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96551 A statutory demand under section 163(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 had to be signed personally by the creditor because the words "under his hand" were treated as deliberate and precise, and the demand signed by an agent was invalid. The company was also not proved unable to pay its debts, as the materials before the Court were insufficient and the debt had in any event been paid shortly after presentation of the petition. The winding-up petition was further found not to be bona fide, having been used as pressure rather than a genuine insolvency proceeding. The decision emphasised that serious statutory consequences require strict compliance with the prescribed form. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 25 Mar 1931 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96551