Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.39 seconds)Section 433 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 439 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Bank Of Nova Scotia vs Rpg Transmission Limited on 23 November, 2004
30. Therefore, it cannot be said that RDB Act covers the field for winding up an insolvent company and, therefore, the contentions of Mr. Tripathi are misconceived and are accordingly rejected. The contention that the petitioner could choose one of the remedies available in case where two or more than two remedies are available is applicable when the remedy provided for is one and the same but when two different remedies are provided for two different reliefs, in that event the plea of election of remedies is not applicable. We, therefore, hold that the winding up Court is concerned with the issue as to whether or not a company could be declared as commercially insolvent and, therefore, comes within the ambit of provisions of Section 433 of the Companies Act. The Debt Recovery Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to entertain any such application for winding up of a company whether the same is by any bank and/or other financial institution. We also hold that both the remedies and jurisdictions are mutually exclusive of each other and, therefore, there cannot be any inconsistency between the two different remedies provided for in two different legislations. We respectfully agree with the Division Bench decisions of Bombay and Calcutta High Court referred to above. The legal issue, which arises for our consideration is answered accordingly....
The Companies Act, 1956
Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co vs Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd on 29 October, 1971
11. The rules as regards the disposal of winding-up petition based on disputed claims are thus stated by the Apex Court in Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries (P) Ltd. . The Supreme Court has held that if the debt is bona fide disputed and the defense is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company. The principles on which the court acts are:
Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment ... vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994
In , Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. v. North India PetroChemicals Ltd. and Anr. it was held by the Apex court that an order under Section 433(e) is discretionary and the debt claimed by the petitioner against a company whose winding up is sought must be a determined or a definite sum of money payable immediately or at a future date. It was further observed by the Apex Court that the inability referred to in the expression unable to pay its dues and Section 433(e) should be taken in commercial sense that is to say that its assets are such and its existing liabilities are such so as to reasonably ascertain that the assets would be insufficient to meet the existing liabilities.