Jamilabai Abdul Kadar vs Shankerlal Gulabchand & Ors on 30 April, 1975
5 We find no justification whatsoever, in law or in equity, for the
rationale adopted by the Division Bench in the impugned Order. The Company
Judge had no alternative but to proceed for Winding up of the Respondent
Company since it had failed to discharge the admitted debt even after the
service of the afore-noted statutory notice. The said junior Advocate of
the Respondent had, in fact, displayed legal sagacity in getting the
winding-up of the Company postponed and avoided the publication in the
Winding-up petition by praying for and obtaining leave to pay the debt in
installments. Had he not done so, the Respondent would have had to pay the
entire debit at once or face certain commercial death as a consequence
publication/citation of Winding-up petition. It is note worthy that the
Respondent so is transacting business even today. The Division Bench has
been inexplicably and unjustifiably considerate towards the Appellant. It
is this kind of leniency that results in proliferation and prolongation of
litigation, which approach has led to an almost insurmountable pendency of
litigation. Learned counsel for the Appellant rightly relies on the
decisions of this Court in Shrimati Jamilabai Abdul Kadar v. Shankarlal
Gulabchand (1975) 2 SCC 609 and State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas
Nayak (1982) 2 SCC 463.