TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 17 June 2005, made by the learned Company Judge, A. M. Khanvilkar, J. (as His Lordship then was), disposing of the Company Petition No. 299 of 1994 and ordering the winding up of the Appellant-Company, under Section 433(e) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 ("said Act"). 3. Mr Rao's main contention was that the security deposit of Rs.50 lakhs accepted by the Appellant-Company from the Respondent [creditor] was refundable but subject to certain terms and conditions. He submitted that such terms and conditions were never fulfilled by the Respondent-Petitioner and therefore, there was no obligation to refund this amount. He submitted that the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resently not able to make any payments. Mr Rao, once again, highlighted the difficulties faced by the Appellant-Company on account of the winding up order and submitted that should this winding up order be set aside, the Appellant-Company, which was a flourishing company, has chances of revival. 6. For the above reasons, Mr Rao submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order winding up the Appellant- Company be set aside. 7. The Official Liquidator present in the Court, made no submissions on the merits of the matter. However, he pointed out that since there was no interim relief in this Appeal, Official Liquidator has already taken over the assets of Appellant-Company and the winding up process is going on. 8. We have heard Mr Rao on mer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n No. 300 of 1994 instituted by one M/s. S. Koder Ltd. The Appellant-Company failed to pay any of the amount undertaken by it to the Creditor and M/s. S. Koder Ltd. Therefore, statutory notices were served upon the Appellant-Company. The Creditor demanded an amount of Rs. 73 lakhs, being Rs.50 lakhs of the refundable security deposit and Rs.23 lakhs of interest as agreed upon in the two writings and the agreement recorded therein. M/s. S. Koder demanded Rs. 47.70 lakhs. In response, the Appellant- Company wrote to the Creditor and S. Koder Ltd. that a sum of Rs. 12,56,861.57/- was due and payable. No details of such assertion were furnished. There was no clarity about the claims made by the Creditor and M/s. S. Koder Ltd. 12. Accordingly, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere difficulties in making supplies. There are findings which were not even attacked in this appeal about the contract being terminated. The security deposit had therefore, to be returned. 15. The minutes of the two meetings acknowledged not only the receipt of the security deposit but also the liability to pay. Initially, the security deposit was not liable to bear any interest. However, considering the delay and the accommodation offered, the Appellant-Company agreed to refund this security deposit with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Even if, for the present, the interest component is excluded from consideration, still, the security deposit of Rs.50 lakhs had become due and payable on the date of service of the statutory notice. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the defenses were neither plausible nor bona fide. There is no reason to interfere with or take any different view in the matter. 19. The learned Company Judge has also referred to the attempt of the Appellant-Company to produce minutes of 16 and 17 July 1992. The learned Company Judge has found that these were never signed by the creditors and in other words, the Appellant-Company had taken a false plea by producing fabricated documents before the Court. Raising false defenses by fabricating minutes, detracts from the bona fide of the defense. Even apart from such fabrication, the defense was far from substantiated prima facie and it lacked any bona fide. 20. The learned Company Judge has also taken cognizance of the fact that the finan....