Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Mrs. Swati Soparkar, on the other hand, appearing for the respondent-company has reiterated the submissions which are made in the affidavit-in-reply as well as the affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder. She has further submitted that the respondent-company has given clear, cogent and unequivocal reasons as to why the document produced should not be considered as the genuine documents. Even otherwise a particular document whether it is genuine or not cannot be decided in the present proceedings as it requires full-fledged trial and leading of necessary evidence in the matter. The respondent-company has raised the serious disputes with regard to the claim of the petitioner and when the petition is seriously disputed this Court should not entertain such petition. Even otherwise, the company is working and it progresses year after year. She has produced the audited accounts of the respondent-company for the year ended on 31st March 2000, 31st March 2001 and 31st March 2002. These accounts show net profit for the year ended on 31st March 2000, 2001 and 2002 at Rs. 8,52,718/=, Rs. 8,64,668/= and Rs. 2,23,813/= respectively. The sales figures for the said period are also Rs. 68,44,988/=, Rs. 64,95,550/= and Rs. 48,91,629/= respectively. The company has also given note in its report that the turnover for the year ended on 31st March 2002 has decreased marginally by about 25%, however the same was due to the general recessionary trend in the economy and the effect of the same was also seen in the profit of the company, but on this basis it cannot be said that the company is incurring heavy losses. Mrs. Soparkar has further submitted that there is a settled legal position that when the claim of the petitioner is disputed and the respondent-company is a running unit and making profits the winding up of the company is not the proper recourse which is to be taken and disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in winding up proceedings. She has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. vs. Micro Forge (India) Ltd, reported in 2000(2) GLR 1594, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has laid down certain important chronicles and contours to be kept in the mental radar, before reaching to the conclusion in a winding-up petition. Some of these important chronicles and contours are that "if the Company is an ongoing concern having regular business and employment of employees, the Court cannot remain oblivious to this aspect. The effect of winding-up would be of putting an end of the business or an industry or an entrepreneurship, and in turn, resulting into loss of employment to the several employees and loss of production and effect on the larger interest of the society." This Court has further observed that "It is a settled proposition of law that winding-up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce the payment of debt which is disputed by the company, bona fide. Winding-up petition ought not to be aimed at pressurising the company to pay the money. Such an attempt would be nothing but would tantamount to blackmailing or stigmatizing the concerned company by abusing the process of the Court." It is further held that, "Winding-up petition is not an alternative form for resolving the debt dispute. In certain cases disputes are such that they are fit for resolving through Civil Court rather than through Company Court."