Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Ram Phal Chaudhary vs Yashu Forests (India) Ltd. on 8 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001]103COMPCAS25(P&H)
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. This is a petition filed by Shri Ram Phal Chaudhary (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") under Sections 433, 434 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") seeking winding up of the respondent-company.
2. The facts alleged are that the petitioner deposited Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 19,900 with the respondent-company vide two different receipts on June 27, 1998. The deposit was made for a period of one year. On maturity, the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 18,159 and Rs. 24,100, respectively. The petitioner went to the respondent's office seeking payment of the said amount. He was told to come after a few days. The grievance of the petitioner is that an amount of Rs. 42,259 with interest due has not been paid. It has been further asserted that the respondent-company is not in a position to pay the debt. The same has also not been paid despite notice having been served.
3. In the reply filed, the respondent-company contested the petition. It has been asserted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition and the amount claimed by the petitioner is too small, for winding up of the respondent-company. On the merits, it is admitted that the respondent-company is under financial crisis and is not in a position to make the payment. It has still insisted that it cannot be termed that the respondent-company is unable to pay the debt.
4. After hearing the parties' counsel, it is patent and clear that the contention of the respondent-company's counsel cannot prevail. It is no ground to assert that because the amount claimed is not a large sum, the petition as such cannot be entertained. Under the provisions of Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, the court has simply to see if the ingredients of the relevant provisions are satisfied. This amount is more than the amount so prescribed. The argument, therefore, so raised is insignificant.
5. It is admitted by the respondent-company itself that because of financial crisis, it is not possible for the respondent-company to make the payment to the petitioner. It must, therefore, for the purposes of the present order, be taken that the respondent-company is unable to pay the debt. The same has not been paid despite service of the notice. Consequently, the company petition is admitted. It is directed that this fact be published in the "Dainik Tribune", the Tribune and in the Official Gazette of Union Territory, Chandigarh, with a clear 14 days gap between the date of publication and the next date of hearing.
6. List it on March 16, 2000, for further directions.