TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vir Singh, Adv. ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal impugns an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi [The High Court] dated 06.11.2017 passed in Company Appeal No. 12/2017 filed by the appellant under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 [1956 Act] against the order of the Company Judge /learned single judge of the High Court dated 15.09.2017 in Company Petition No. 66/2013 filed by the respondent. 3. Company Petition No.66/2013 was filed by the respondent for winding up the appellant by claiming, inter alia, that the appellant, without justification, had withheld payment of a sum equivalent to 3,50,000 USD payable to it. 4. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 15.09.2017 admitted the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the counsel for the parties at some length and thereafter, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant had prayed for some time to obtain instructions. 2. On the matter being called out after recess on the second occasion, learned senior counsel has stated that the appellant would deposit $3,50,000, along with interest @8% per annum with effect from 26th May, 2012, when the statutory notice was served. The deposit would be made in Indian Rupees, with the conversion rate applicable as on 26th May, 2012. 3. He submits that in case deposit is not made within three months, the appellant would suffer consequences in terms of the directions given in paragraphs 20 to 22 of the order dated 15th September, 2017. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sit the amount equivalent to 3,50, 000 USD to show its bona fides so that the matter could be adjudicated on merits as would be clear from the statement of appellant's counsel, as recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, that the appellant would invoke the arbitration clause in terms of the agreement dated 18.05.2009. It has also been submitted that if the appellant had intention to admit its liability, there was no occasion for the High Court to permit withdrawal of the deposited amount, or the amount to be deposited, on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar General. It is, therefore, the case of the appellant that the offer to deposit was with an intent to show appellant's bona fides to contest the winding up clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enefit of the peremptory order of the Company Judge which directed that if deposit is not made, then the order for publication and appointment of the provisional liquidator would operate. 10. In that context, the submission on behalf of the respondent-company is that the order passed by the High Court should be treated as one on concession/ consent and, therefore, the appeal should not be entertained. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the materials available on record. 12. Before we proceed further, it may be noticed that on 29.01.2018 while issuing notice on the petition, an opportunity was given to the appellant to make the deposit in terms of the impugned order. For ready reference, the order of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id not agree with the contentions made on behalf of the appellant. However, when we take into consideration the observations made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order, it appears that the High Court had put a condition on withdrawal of the amount to be deposited by the appellant and had not expressed any opinion on whether the amount was actually due and payable by the appellant to the respondent. In fact, the respondent was required to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Registrar General for withdrawing the amount so deposited. Interestingly, the condition of furnishing security was not there in the order of the Company Judge. Most importantly, the High Court recorded the statement of the appellant that he would be invoking....