Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Kalra Iron Stores vs Faridabad Fabricators (P.) Ltd. on 31 October, 1990

Alliance Credit And Investments Ltd. vs Khaitan Hostombe Spinels Ltd. on 24 May, 1996

In the case of Kalra Iron Stores v. Faridabad Fabricators (P.) Ltd. (No. 2) [1991] 73 Comp Cas 337, the Delhi High Court has also taken a similar view and has held that even without invoking the deemed inability of a company to pay its debts, a creditor can seek winding up of a company under Section 433(e) read with Section 434(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. I, therefore, find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that irrespective of defective notice under Section 434(1)(a) of the Act, the petitioner can invoke the provisions of Section 433(e) read with Section 434(1)(c) of the Act and prove that the company is unable to pay its debts. It will, however, be noticed that Section 433 enumerates the circumstances in which the company may be wound up. (emphasis* supplied). Clause (e) of Section 433 states that a company may be wound up by the court if the company is unable to pay its debts. It is, therefore, very clear that it is the discretion of the court whether, in the circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice to wind up the company. It is well settled that the winding up order is not granted mechanically as a matter of course but on proof of certain facts. Equitable considerations have a decisive effect even when the power to wind up a company is invoked under Section 433(e) of the Act. The court may, if there are sufficient counter-balancing equitable grounds or in appropriate cases even refuse altogether the winding up of the company in spite of the proved inability of a company to pay its debts. Exercise of such discretionary power must initially be governed by justice and equity.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ifci Factors Ltd. vs Koutons Retail India Ltd. on 13 May, 2013

13. Even if the legal notice in the present case was not served KRIL at its registered office, there is no denial by KRIL that it in fact received such notice. Also as explained by the Court in Kalra Iron Stores v. Faridadbad Fabricators (P) Ltd, as long as IFL is able to demonstrate that there is an admitted liability which KRIL has been unable to pay, it can pursue this petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Deb Paints Pvt. Ltd. vs Universal Lime Industries on 20 November, 2001

In Kalra Iron Stores (supra) the objection was that the constitution of firm had not been stated in the petition and as such amendment was sought for by the petitioner which was opposed by the company. In that context, the learned Judge said that Section 69 of IPA does not require the plaintiff state in the plaint that the plaintiff firm is a registered one. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - A K Ganguly - Full Document

P.S.V.P. Vittal Rao vs Progressive Constructions Private ... on 28 December, 1992

The Delhi High Court also held in Kalra Iron Stores v. Faridabad Fabricators (P) Ltd. (1991) 1 Comp LJ 177 (Del) : (1991) 73 Comp Cas 337 (Del). That in a petition filed for winding up on the ground of inability to pay debts, the condition precedent for filing of the petition is that the statutory notice must be served on the company. It is held that for invoking the provisions of section 434(1)(a) of the Act, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to serve upon the respondent company, by causing to be delivered at its registered office, by registered post or otherwise, notices of demand requiring the company to pay the sum due to the petitioners and that where no proof was filed in token of service of notice in spite of the fact that the service of the notice was seriously disputed by the respondent company, the petitioners were not entitled to invoke the winding up jurisdiction of the court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 34 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

State Black Sea Shipping Company And Mr. ... vs Viraj Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on 15 July, 2003

13. The aforesaid view that I have taken is also fortified by the decision of this Court in Kalra Iron Stores (supra) where it was held that the aforesaid provision is required to be strictly construed and that a creditor for relying upon the deemed inability of the company to pay its debts has to strictly comply the requirements of service of notice of demand in terms of section 434(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that there was substantial compliance of the provisions of section 434(1)(a) as the notice was served on the respondent at the address to which it was sent, which is proved by the fact that a reply was sent to the said notice by the respondent, cannot be accepted. So far as the contention that the respondent has also waived its right to raise such an objection in view of sending a reply to the statutory notice and not raising such an objection in the said reply is concerned, the same is also held to be without any merit in view of the settled position of law that the statutory requirement provided under section 434(1)(a) of the Act has to be strictly complied with, as it is a legal requirement to deliver the statutory notice at the registered office of the company to create a statutory fiction. The deemed inability of the company to pay its debts would arise only on compliance of the requirement laid down under section 434 and there is no question of any waiver by the company. The said contention is also held to be without any merit.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - M Sharma - Full Document

Shri Krishna Holding vs Auto Ignition Limited on 25 September, 2004

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the averments made in the petition and submitted that when the respondent company had admitted having received the amount in question against sale of value based advance licenses and also admitted that it is the respondent company which had availed the Modvat Credit, the petitioner could not have imported the goods availing the said credit against these lincences and, therefore, in view of this admitted fact, the debt was payable which is in the nature of admitted debt and non-payment thereof gives rise to the filing of the present petition. It was also his submission that the defense taken by the respondent company is not at all bona fide and it is sham and, therefore, the same be discarded. Learned counsel in support of the prayer made in the petition placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Kala Iron Store v. Faridabad Fabricateors (P) Ltd., 1991 Comp. LJ 177 (Delhi.) wherein it was held that:-
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

The Sandu Manganese And Iron Ores ... vs Maganese Ore (India) Limited, Nagpur on 29 March, 2001

It was held that in order to raise the legal fiction under Section 434(1)(a), that the Company is unable to pay its debts, the requirements of Section 434(1)(a) has to be strictly complied with; and service of notice of demand at the administrative office of the Company, was not sufficient to raise the presumption under Section 434(1)(a) and consequently, the winding up petition was liable to be rejected, 9.2 The Calcutta High Court, in Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Railway Company Limited v Union of India and In re Dytron (India) Limited and the Delhi High Court in Kalra Iron Stores v Faridabad Fabricators (Private) Limited , have also taken the same view and held that demand notice should be served only at the registered office of the Company and service on the administrative office will not give rise to the presumption under Section 434(1)(a).
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bibby Financial Services India Pvt. ... vs Ecotech Apparels Pvt. Ltd. on 8 May, 2013

In Kalra Iron Stores v. Faridabad Fabricators (P) Ltd. [1992] 73 Comp Cas 337, this Court held that "even without invoking the deemed inability of the company to pay its debts, a creditor can seek winding up of a company under section 433(e) read with Section 434(1)(c)." However, in order to succeed on that basis, there has to be a pleading with reference to Section 433(e) or in respect of Section 434(1)(c) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 Next