AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d other spares. The said material was being imported by the respondent from the petitioner. The petitioner claims that a sum of SFR 345,149.30 is undisputably due and payable to the petitioner from the respondent. 3. Notice under section 433(e) & (f) and 434 of Act was sent on 31.12.1998 pointing out that the respondent company owes to the petitioner SFR 387,241.30. The respondent replied to the aforesaid legal notice disputing the liability on 27.1.1999. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order of this court dated 18.9.2000 to point out the conduct of the respondent/Directors. The said order records that Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain, Director of the respondent com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssets to enable them to repay the dues of the petitioner. He further states that all the secured and unsecured creditors have been paid off. 7. I may point out that there is a dispute pending between the various groups of the respondent company. Today before me a connected matter is also listed being Co.A.(SB) 13/2010 relating to a dispute between different groups of the respondent company. Proceedings under section 397 and 398 of the Act are pending. It has been pointed out that Group of Mr.Vinod Kumar Jain has only 12.5% shareholding in the company whereas the other groups, namely, Nirmal Jain group has 33% share, Raj Jain and Mrs. Anit Jain, jointly hold 14.5% making total approx. 48.5%. Sandeep Jain group has 20% and Pradeep Kum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt that necessary sum of Rs. 15 lacs would be deposited on or before 16th September 2000. He also submitted that irrespective of any future development or other proceedings in future the said sum of Rs. 15 lacs would be deposited with Vaish Associates. On the assurance of Mr.Vinod Kumar Jain this court had deferred winding up of the respondent company and granted time to the respondent to deposit the sum of Rs. 15 lacs. 11. On the next date, namely, on 18.9.2000 it transpired that a reference before BIFR under section 15 of SICA and section 22 of SICA was already filed and that further proceedings in this petition stood stayed. This court came to the conclusion that Mr.Vinod Kumar Jain acted in a dishonest manner to frustrate the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t settled between the parties till date hence the outstanding amount as mentioned by the Petitioner in the present winding up petition in Indian currency is not admitted due to the above said dispute." 13. It is clear that the only dispute is as to whether the amount which the petitioner company claims is to be paid in Indian Rupees or in Swiss Francs. 14. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a Swiss company and payments have to be made in Swiss Francs. The conversion rate would be applicable on the date the respondent tenders payment. On the other hand the case of Mr. Vinod Jain on behalf of the respondent company is that the payments would have to be based on the conversion rates on the date o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company. The court has dismissed a petition for winding up where the creditor claimed a sum for goods sold to the company and the company contended that no price had been agreed upon and the sum demanded by the creditor was unreasonable. Again, a petition for winding up by a creditor who claimed payment of an agreed sum for work done for the company when the company contended that the work had not been done properly was not allowed. 22. Where the debt is undisputed the court will not act upon a defence that the company has the ability to pay the debt but the company chooses not to pay that particular debt. Where however there is no doubt that the company owes the creditor a d....