TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (1) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decretal amount of Rs. 8,86,197.27 is due and payable by the company, which the company is unable to pay. The genesis of the claim is that in a Company Appeal No. 3-R of 1990, consent terms were drawn up and based upon which the Company Application No. 13-R of 1990 (Smt. Deepa Anant Bandekar v. Rajaram Bandekar (Sirigao) Mines P. Ltd. [1992] 74 Comp Cas 42 (Bom.)) was disposed of. At the same time, a civil suit also was pending between the parties which was also disposed of by consent decree on the same date on April 10, 1991. In terms of the consent decree made in the company appeal, the company had to pay a large amount of over Rs. 60,00,000 in instalments payable every month commencing from April 30, 1991, and falling due at the end ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Schedule I, annexed to the consent terms in the company appeal, was made the basis of payment of the decretal sum in the special civil suit. Therefore, a single default of payment of instalment does not make the entire amount due. Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, now says that the debt due under decree is clear and the same cannot be denied because it flows from the consent decree. Secondly, he says when the debt is indisputable there can be no question except to admit the petition for winding up the company and, lastly, he says that the company has not raised the dispute to the claim raised by the petitioner with bona fides. He, therefore, says that based upon the decision in Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. ....