Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Vijayalakshmi vs Hari Hara Ginning And Pressing Pvt. Ltd. on 7 August, 1998

Jumgo Cotton Enterprises vs Rayalaseema Mills Ltd. on 20 April, 2005

In Smt. Vijayalakshmi v. Hari Hara Ginning and Pressing (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that the proceedings under Section 433 of the Act is not a substitute for a Civil Suit by a creditor against the company. The admission or a bona fide dispute about the debt has to be determined in appropriate civil forum. There is no gain-saying that the object of Section 433 of the Act is to provide a summary remedy and save the shareholders or creditors of the company where the company is unable to meet its admitted liability. No doubt, mere filing of a Civil Suit need not be an impediment to proceed with the company petition for winding up. Yet, it is a circumstance to be taken into consideration while arriving at the conclusion that the debt is admitted or there is a bona fide dispute with respect to the same and it has to be determined in appropriate civil forum.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shapoorji Pallonji Finance Ltd. vs Shree Rayalaseema Alkalies And Allied ... on 20 April, 2005

13. Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner was referred to arbitration for adjudication and it is still pending for adjudication. In spite of the pendency of the said adjudicatory proceedings before the Arbitrator, the petitioner has come up with the present petition contending that the present petition is maintainable irrespective of the arbitration proceedings and sought to rely upon various decisions referred to earlier. But a perusal of those decisions clearly provides that if there is no dispute as to the liability and if there is an admitted debt, then a proceeding under Section 433 of the Act would lie seeking for an order of winding up. But, on the other hand, if the debt is disputed and if it requires adjudication, then a proceeding under Section 433 would not lie. This view is supported by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayalakshmi v. Hari Hara Ginning and Pressing (supra), wherein it was held that if a matter requires adjudication of the disputed facts, where, in fact, a civil suit was filed by the alleged creditor, it was held that a petition under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 would not lie. In the present case, admittedly, the matter was referred for arbitration for adjudication. Though the petitioner contended that there is an admitted liability, but nowhere the respondent admitted such liability. It was not the case of the petitioner that the respondent had, admitted its liability to the petitioner in its books of accounts or was there any communication by the respondent to the petitioner admitting the liability. Though the petitioner relied upon the affidavit stated to have been filed by the Managing Director of the Respondent Company in another proceedings before the Madras High Court, but the said petition was not a proceeding between the petitioner and the respondent herein. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said affidavit. Further, the reference to arbitration by the petitioner itself shows that there is no admitted liability on the part of the respondent.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Walnut Packaging Private Limited vs The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited And Anr. on 18 March, 2008

In Vijayalakshmi v. Hari Hara Ginning & Pressing (1999) 96 Comp Cas 723, a Division Bench of this Court considered the above question. It was held that, "it is a well established law that for giving an acknowledgment, a person has to be conscious of his act to the knowledge of the other person. Merely showing a debt in a balance sheet cannot, prima facie, as presently advised, be termed to be an acknowledgment in terms of the Indian Limitation Act. The acknowledgment as envisaged by the Limitation Act categorically had to be with the intention of accepting the debt with the object of extending the limitation for recovery, which is not the case herein." As there is a binding judgment of this Court, it is not necessary for this Court sitting Single to consider other High Courts' judgments relied by learned Counsel for Walnut in support of the contention that the mention of amount owed to Walnut in the balance sheet amounts to acknowledgment of debt. When the very debt is disputed in a bona fide manner, mentioning in balance sheet does not amount to acceptance or admitting debt.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sheetal Fabrics vs Coir Cushions Ltd. on 28 February, 2005

"Without expressing our opinion on the law laid down in that judgment, though it cannot be categorically laid down that mere showing a debt in balance-sheet would amount to acknowledgement, we may observe that it is a well established law that for giving an acknowledgement a person has to be conscious of his act to the knowledge of the other person. Merely showing a debt in a balance-sheet cannot, prima facie, be termed to the an acknowledgement for the purposes of the Limitation Act, 1963. The acknowledgement as envisaged by the Limitation Act categorically has to be with the intention of accepting the debt with the object of extending limitation."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - A K Sikri - Full Document

N.N. Valechha vs I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd. on 15 September, 2006

In this context, reference could be made to the case of Smt. Vijayalakshmi v. Hari Hara Ginning and Pressing P. Ltd. [2001] 103 Comp Cas 195 (AP) wherein it is stated that it is well-settled that the procedure under Section 433 of the Companies Act is summary. The bona fide dispute implies the existence of substantial ground for the dispute raised. Such a dispute has been made out by the respondent. At this stage reference to some decided cases will be in order. "It is well-settled that a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of a debt which is bona fide disputed by the company.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Southern Explosives Company Pvt Ltd vs Gulf Oil Corporation Limited on 19 September, 2011

In this context, the learned senior counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in (Smt. Vijayalakshmi vs. Hari Hara Ginning and Pressing) 1999 Volume 5 Company Cases 723 wherein the Honourable Division Bench held that merely a debit note is shown in the balance sheet, it cannot be construed as an acknowledgment of debt. In that case, it was further held that merely showing a debt in a balance sheet, would not prima facie be termed as an acknowledgment in terms of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was further held that the term acknowledgment, as envisaged in the Limitation Act categorically had to be with the intention of accepting the debt with the object of extending the limitation for recovery. Under these circumstances, it was held by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that admission made in the balance sheet cannot be construed as an admission of liability.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

Leela Mercantile Private Limited vs Eastman Fab Limited on 9 December, 2011

10. The case before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt.Vijayalakshmi's case (supra) was where Company Petition No.49 of 2010 7 the petitioner had preferred a civil suit for recovery of the amount which included the admitted amount due and in such a situation, it was held that entertaining of the petition under the Act was not proper.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A K Mittal - Full Document
1   2 Next