Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.46 seconds)Section 434 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 488 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 439 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
M.V. Paulose vs City Hospital (P.) Ltd. on 4 October, 1990
Similarly, the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of M. V. Paulose (supra) does not assist the petitioner as in that case debt was admitted but dispute was in respect of payment made to the company or to its director personally. The facts are different in our matter. Even the third judgment of the Delhi High Court (supra) will not help the learned Counsel as in that case the plea of limitation that the debt was time-barred was viewed as not bona fide. The debt was admitted by the company but it was pleaded that there was sufficient security therefor. In our case the debt is not admitted but is bona fide disputed.
Indian Companies Act, 1913
G. Loganayaki vs Moolangudi Chit Funds Private Ltd. on 2 February, 1978
The petitioner must establish its debt and must also cross the hurdles under Section 443(2) of the Act. In the present case the petitioner has failed on both the counts. A running company employing more than 300 employees having annual turnover of lacs of rupees cannot be ordered to be woundup. Even admission of such petition would cause damage to it. I find full support in my view from the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of G. Loganayaki (supra) on as under :--
New Swadeshi Mills Of Ahmedabad Ltd. vs Dye-Chem Corporation on 2 January, 1985
In the case of New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad Ltd. v. Dye Chem Corporation [1986] 59 Comp. Cas. 183, a Division Bench of this Court has held as under (at page 186) :
Indana Spices & Food Indus. Ltd. vs Indian Charge Chrome on 13 May, 1996
(i) Indana Spices and Food Industries Ltd. v. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. [1997] 89 Comp. Cas. 570 (Delhi)
1