TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1042
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrections vide orders dated 15.12.2021 and 23.12.2021, there are three orders before us, but the substance thereof is as noted above. The challenge in these three appeals is to those three orders, ventilating various grievances including about disposal / pendency of some interim application(s) in the Company Petition. 2.1 Mr. V.Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant Company has addressed the Court at length. It is noted that he has extensively taken this Court through the paper books, running into few hundred pages. He has also relied on number of authorities, which are quoted here below. 2.2 It is noted that various submissions are made on behalf of the appellant, as raised as grounds of appeal(s) as mentioned in the memo of appeals, the substance thereof is that, what the petitioner claims, can at the best be said to be due and not the debt. Further, there is serious dispute about that amount being payable by the appellant to SR Technics and further that, the said dispute is bonafide and also a substantial one. It is therefore submitted that the winding up petition ought not to have been admitted by the Company Court. 2.3 The bone contention on behalf of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....logies Ltd rep. By its Managing Director Mr.Gopal Krishnan reported in (2013) 3 LW 879 (x) M/s.Jayanth Pharma Chem v M/s.Kekule Pharma Ltd reported in 2013 SCC Online AP 20 (xi) M/s.Baba Finance Corporation v Mohd. Nayeem and Another reported in 1996 SCC Online AP 1339 (xii) Dabholkar Enterprises (Partnership Firm) v Padma Alloy Castings Private Limited reported in 1994 SCC Online Bom 324 (xiii) M/s.Nehru Place Hotels Limited v M/s.Bhushan Limited reported in 2011 SCC Online Del 3342 (xiv) Sri Vijayalakshmi Art Productions rep. By its Partners C.Venkataraju, G.Sivaraju and Smt.C.Ramalakshmi v Vijaya Productions (P) Limited, Vadapalani, Madras - 26 reported in 1995 SCC Online Mad 498 (xv) In the matter of M/s Rushabh Precision Bearings Ltd, M/s.Marine Container Services (India) Private Limited reported in 1999 SCC Online Bom 263 (xvi) Tata Iron and Steel Co v Micro-Forged (India) Limited reported in 2000 SCC Online Guj 394 (xvii) Wimco Ltd v Sidvink Properties P Ltd reported in MANU/DE/0191/1994 (xviii) Regazzoni v K.C.Sethia (1994) Ltd reported in 1958 AC 301 2.6 It is noted that, on behalf of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported in 1989 1 LW 320 (Mad) (iii) Michael Hart v Ninestars Information Technologies Ltd reported in 2013 - 3 LW 879 (iv)M/s. Classic Diamonds (India) Limited v ICICI Bank Limited reported in 2016 SCC Online Bom 15573 (v)Vijay Industries v NATL Technologies Limited reported in (2009) 3 SCC 527 (vi) Wolstenholme International Limited v Twin Stars Industrial Corporation reported in 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 194 (vii)Kanhaiyalal v Dulichand reported in 1969 SCC OnLine Raj 147 (viii)Bhanwar Lal v Firm Mangalji Chhoteylal Barn reported in 1981 SCC OnLine Raj 13 (ix) V.R.Sonai v Chinniah Konar reported in 1968 SCC OnLine Mad 109 (x) R.Kannusamy v V.V.K.Samy & Co., Singapore reported in 1988 SCC OnLine Mad 159 (xi)Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. V Axiom Cordages Limited and ors reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 781 (xii)Dr.Chiranji lal (D) by Lrs v Hari Das (D) by Lrs reported in (2005) 10 SCC 746. (xiii)Ponnusami Chettiar v Kailasam Chettiar reported in (1947) 60 LW 442 (xiv) Nokia India Pvt Ltd v State of Chattisgarh reported in (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1451 (xv)SRM Exploration Pv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al on record, arrived at satisfaction that, the defence which the respondent Company has taken can not be said to be bonafide. 7. We have independently examined this aspect. For this purpose, we have taken into consideration the following documents, which are on record. 7.1 The Company Petition which is dated 07.07.2015, with annexures thereto. 7.2 The counter statement on behalf of the Company dated 21.07.2016. 7.3 The rejoinder of the petitioner dated 07.09.2016 and the annexures to those pleadings. 7.4 The annexures to the above three, with specific reference to the following:- 7.4.1 Engine Maintenance Agreement between SR Technics and the Appellant dated 24 November 2011. 7.4.2 Amendment No.2 to the Agreement between SR Technics and the Appellant dated 24 August 2012. 7.4.3 Supplementary Agreement for deferred payment between SR Technics and the Appellant dated 24 August 2012. 7.4.4 Frame agreement between SR Technics and the Respondent dated 26 September 2012. 7.4.5 Transaction agreement between SR Technics and the Respondent dated 26 September 2012. 7.4.6 Invoice raised by SR Technics on the Appellant Company for USD 4,134,733.75 bearing refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission of the winding up petition as ordered by learned Single Judge. From record it transpires that the said due needs to be accepted as admitted dues. 8. The defence raised by the Company is two fold. Firstly that the documents relied by the petitioner Credit Suisse, Switzerland are not stamped and therefore the Courts in India will not take cognisance thereof and secondly, the S.R.Technics did not have valid license from the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and therefore it could not have legally maintained the Aircrafts / Engines of the appellant Company and consequently no amount could be said to be payable by the appellant to it and thereby there is bonafide dispute with regard to the said payment. 9. So far the first point that the documents relied by the petitioner Credit Suisse, Switzerland are not stamped and therefore the Courts in India will not take cognisance thereof is concerned, we find that it needs to be noted that the Company Court has taken note of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, so also that of the Bombay High Court which takes the view that, at the time of admission of the winding up petition, the point at issue is not whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered with. The stand of the appellant as quoted above would also justify admission of the petition under Section 433 (f) of the Act as well. 12. So far grievance against appointment of Provisional Liquidator is concerned, the prayer in that regard was already there in main petition, so also in one of the miscellaneous petitions. That prayer is granted by the Company Court, while admitting the petition. The same is after taking into consideration the contest on record on behalf of the respondent of the petition - the present appellant. In the facts of the case, that also does not call for any interference. It is noted that the winding up petition which was filed in the year 2015 could be taken up for admission only in the year 2021. Though no observation for / or against any of the parties in this regard is made, the fact remains that the said pendency has not helped the petitioner in any manner. The appellant claims to be one of the largest passenger carrier in the civil aviation industry of our Country, which by its own stand has carried hundreds of thousands of passengers for all these years without maintenance of its Air Crafts and engines from any service provider with valid....