Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.02 seconds)Kalra Iron Stores vs Faridabad Fabricators (P.) Ltd. on 31 October, 1990
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.
State Black Sea Shipping Company And Mr. ... vs Viraj Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on 15 July, 2003
In the absence of such pleading, the Court will
Co. Pet. No.328 of 2011 Page 11 of 16
decline to entertain the petition where the requirement of Section 434(1)(a)
has not been met [see State Black Sea Shipping Co. v. Viraj Overseas Pvt.
Ltd. [2005] 125CompCas831(Delhi)].
Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment ... vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994
In Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. v. North
India Petro Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 79 Comp Cas 835 the Supreme Court
explained that the expression "unable to pay its debts" under Section 433(e)
should be taken in the commercial sense in that the company "is unable to
meet the current demands." The Court must be satisfied that "the existing
and probable assets would be insufficient to meet the existing liability."
M/S.Iba Health (India) Private Ltd vs M/S.Info Drive Systems Sdn Bhd on 21 October, 2009
In
IBA Health (India) Private Limited v. Info-Drive Systems Sdn. Bhd. (2010)
10 SCC 553, the Court explained that "A determination of examination of
the company's insolvency may be a useful aid in deciding whether the
Co. Pet. No.328 of 2011 Page 13 of 16
refusal to pay is a result of the bona fide dispute as to liability or whether it
reflects an inability to pay, in such a situation, solvency is relevant not as a
separate ground. If there is no dispute as to the company's liability, the
solvency of the company might not constitute a stand alone ground for
setting aside a notice under Section 434(1)(a), meaning thereby, if a debt is
undisputedly owing, then it has to be paid. If the company refuses to pay on
no genuine and substantial grounds, it should not be able to avoid the
statutory demand." It was again reiterated that "If the debt is an undisputedly
owing, then it should be paid. If the company refuses to pay, without good
reason, it should be able to avoid the statutory demand by proving, at the
statutory demand stage, that it is solvent. In other words, commercial
solvency can be seen as relevant as to whether there was a dispute as to the
debt, not as a ground in itself, that means it cannot be characterised as a
stand alone ground."
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 433 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 443 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 450 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
P.S.V.P. Vittal Rao vs Progressive Constructions Private ... on 28 December, 1992
20. In the reply filed by EAPL, a preliminary objection has been taken that
the demand notice in terms of Section 434 of the Act was not served at the
registered office of EAPL. It is stated that the documents placed on record
Co. Pet. No.328 of 2011 Page 9 of 16
show that the legal notice was served at F-9, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi
Chowk, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi - 110 041, whereas EAPL shifted
from the said office in March 2011. It is stated that an e-Form 18 was filed
with the Registrar of Companies ('ROC') to that effect in April 2011. It is
stated that with effect from 26th April 2011, the registered office of EAPL
has been shifted to Plot No.11, Samalka, Kapashera-Najafgarh road crossing,
New Delhi 110 037. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Winter Misra
Diamond Tools Ltd. v. Payal Granites (P) Ltd. (2005) 59 SCL 337 (Raj.),
N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P) Ltd. [1991] 70 Comp Cas 31 (Bom),
Donghee Vision Industrial Company Ltd. v. Tube Investments of India
Ltd. (2001) 104 Com Cases 460, P.S.V.P. Vittal Rao v. Progressive
Constructions P. Ltd. (1999) 2 Comp LJ 228 (AP), Vyasa Bank Ltd. v.
Randheer Steel and Alloys (P) Ltd. (1993) 76 Com Cases 244 (Bom), Kold-
Hold Industries P. Ltd. v. Arabian Exports Ltd. (2004) 119 Com Cases
1(Bom.