Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)
Indian Duplicator Co. Ltd. vs V.P.L. Electronics And Engineering ... on 21 September, 1990 cites

Newfinds (India) vs Vorion Chemicals And Distilleries Ltd. on 7 March, 1975

Thee observations in Newfinds India [1976] 46 Comp Case 87 (Mad) made by the learned single judge that even if part of the debt is disputed, the court should refuse to make an order of winding up, can only mean that where a substantial part of the debt is disputed on a substantial ground, the winding up petition should be dismissed. Court will not refuse to make an order of winding up where the disputed part of the debt is insignificant. What is "significant" or "insignificant" will again depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the company has not been ble to raise a bona fide dispute in respect of a significant part of the debt.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co vs Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd on 29 October, 1971

In Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu woollen Industries P. Ltd. [1972] 42 Comp Case 125 (SC), the Supreme Court has cited with approval the following observations made in Tweeds Garages Ltd., In re [1962] Ch 406 ; [1962] 32 Comp Case 795 (Ch D), page 131 of 42 Comp Case 125, "Where, however, there is no doubt that the company owes the creditor a debt entitling him to a winding up order but the exact amount of the debt is disputed, the court will make a winding up order without requiring the creditor to quantify the debt precisely."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 366 - A N Ray - Full Document
1