TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant/petitioner the share capital of the respon-dent is Rs. 20 crores divided into 2 crores equity shares of Rs. 10 each and the issued share capital of the respondent is Rs. 16,19,37,000 divided into 1,61,93,700 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The objects of the respondent are to generate, accumulate, distribute, supply electricity and other power for the purpose of light, heat, motive power and for all other purposes for which electricity and other energy can be employed. As per the purchase order dated 18-2-1994, the respondent placed an order upon the petitioner for certain quantities of fasteners. Between the period February 1994 and February 1996, the petitioner supplied the fasteners as ordered by the respondent and raised inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its liability and informed that it was facing a liquidity crisis and undertook to clear off the debts within a period of one month. Even thereafter, the respondent has failed to discharge the admitted debt with interest. Hence, the petitioner submits that the respondent is unable to pay its debts and is deemed to be unable to pay its debts, within the meaning of section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the respondent-company is liable to be wound up. The respondent-company is commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts and on that ground also it is just and equitable that the respondent-company is liable to be wound up. The petitioner has also prayed for an interim order of injunction against the respondent restraining him from d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent to the petitioner were deliberately suppressed by the petitioner. It has been made clear to the petitioner that the amount due under excise duty is not liable to be paid by the respondent since the fasteners supplied by the petitioner were exempted from excise duty. The wind mill itself is exempted from excise duty and all the parts required for the functioning of the wind mill are also exempted from excise duty. Materials worth more than Rs. 22 lakhs are lying on the stock of the respondent, which have to be accounted and taken back by the petitioner. The respondent has not admitted or acknowledged a sum of Rs. 71,17,688.49 as the amount due to the petitioner in his letter dated 13-8-1996. The respondent has made payments sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent had repaid the entire cheque amount and the amount payable was Rs. 62,67,688.49 only and there was a compromise entered into between the parties and under the compromise the respondent had agreed to pay a lump sum of Rs. 11,18,648.85 at the time of signing the memo of compromise and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 51,49,039.64 in three equal monthly instalments of Rs. 3,67,788.55 commencing from March, 2001, and both the parties have signed in the memo of compromise and as per clause 6 of the memo of compromise, if the respondent is making any default in paying the instalments, he is liable to pay 24 per cent per annum interest from due dates. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Single Judge has failed to ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....public authorities, to invent methods of their own to short circuit and give a go-by to the obligations and liabilities incurred by them under orders of the court-the rule of law will certainly become a casualty in the process-a costly consequence to be jealously averred by all and at any rate by the highest courts in States in the country. It does not, in our view, require any extraordinary exercise to hold that the memorandum and terms of the compromise in this case became part of the orders of the High Court itself when the earlier writ petition was finally disposed of on 13-2-1991, in the terms noticed supra notwithstanding that there was no verbatim reproduction of the same in the order. The orders passed in this regard admits of no do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cution of the decree. On this ground alone, Govind Ram has to be non-suited." (p. 1639) 11. In Baksi Ram v. Brij Lal [1994] Suppl. (3) SCC 198, the Supreme Court has held as follows :- ". . . Law has to promote justice. The courts of equity and justice cannot uphold such an unfair stand. The respondent cannot be permitted to reprobate to his advantage. The binding effect of the compromise decree could not be taken away as it was to operate after death of the donor. May be a person with a better right, for instance, the sister of the last male holder, could sue the appellants and claim the property being nearer but that could not dilute the effect of the compromise decree, even though in nature of declaratory decree nor it could clothe the....