Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[12] It is the settled position in law that when exact amount of liability is in dispute but debt more than the requisite amount in terms of Section 434 of the Act is established, then winding up order is to be passed (See: 1971(3) SCC 632 M/s. Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. Vs. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd., (1962) 32 Comp. Cases 795 In re Tweeds Garages Ltd. and 2009(3) SCC 527 Vijay Industries Vs. NATL Technologies Ltd.

[13] So far as the defence of the respondent in respect of filing of earlier writ petition being W.P. No.9283/2012 is concerned, as per the respondent's own showing the writ petition was filed since the Sales Tax Authorities in order to recover the dues, had issued Sale Proclamation for auction of the respondent's properties mortgaged with the petitioner. Hence on account of filing of the said writ petition, the right of the petitioner to file the present winding up petition will not be forfeited. [14] The respondent has also raised an objection that the petitioner has taken action under the SARFAESI Act by filing an application before the DRT, therefore, the present winding up petition is not maintainable. It has been pointed out that the proceedings before the DRT are presently at the initial stage of notice and reply. This issue has already been decided by this Court by order dated 20.11.2014 passed in Company Petition No.9/2011 in the matter of winding up of M/s. Zoom Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. and UCO Bank, wherein this Court after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Allahabad Bank Vs. Canara Bank and another, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1535 as also the other judgments on the point, has held that the Bank is entitled to file petition before the Court for winding up of the Company under Section 433 of the Act, even after approaching the DRT for recovery of debts. Though such a winding up petition is held to be maintainable but while conducting the proceedings of winding up, this Court is required to exercise the power keeping in view the provisions of the RDBI Act which have overriding effect in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Allahabad Bank (supra). [15] In view of the above, I am of the view that it is a fit case for passing an order of winding up of the respondent-company [16] Accordingly it is directed that :-