Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)Section 433 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P.) Ltd. vs Pravinchandra P. Mehta on 13 January, 1989
The Delhi High Court considered various judgments, mentioned therein including that of Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1954] 24 Comp Cas 507 (Cal) and that of this Court in the case of N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises P. Ltd. v. Pravinchandra P. Mehta [1991] 70 Comp Cas 31.
Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Railway Co. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 17 December, 1953
The Delhi High Court considered various judgments, mentioned therein including that of Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1954] 24 Comp Cas 507 (Cal) and that of this Court in the case of N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises P. Ltd. v. Pravinchandra P. Mehta [1991] 70 Comp Cas 31.
B. Viswanathan vs Seshasayee Paper And Boards Ltd. on 3 October, 1991
In the case of B. Viswanathan v. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. [1992] 73 Comp Cas 136 (Mad) it was held that unless the statutory notice served on a company under Section 434 of the Companies Act is in conformity with the mandatory requirements of Section 434(1) (a) of the Act, the presumption under the section as to the company's inability to pay its debts cannot be raised. That was a case where the notice was not served on the company at its registered office but on its managing director and therefore it was held that the notice did not conform to the mandatory requirement of Section 434(1) (a) of the Act.
Vysya Bank Ltd. vs Randhir Steel And Alloys (P.) Ltd. on 1 January, 1800
In the case of Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Randhir Steel and Alloys P. Ltd. [1993] 76 Comp Cas 244 this Court held that (page 246): "the inability or deemed inability of the company to pay its debts arises by compliance with the requirements laid down in Section 434 and that is the basis of this company petition, and therefore, there is no question of waiver".
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Nepc India Ltd. on 25 October, 2002
The view held in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. [2003] 114 Comp Cas 207 (Mad) that a notice served on the administrative office of the company is a valid notice is of no assistance to the case of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case where the notice was served on the factory address of the petitioner. In any event, it must be held that the said view is contrary to the views expressed by the Division Bench of this court as well as other decisions referred to hereinabove and therefore need not be followed.
Smt. Vijayalakshmi vs Hari Hara Ginning And Pressing Pvt. Ltd. on 7 August, 1998
In this context, reference could be made to the case of Smt. Vijayalakshmi v. Hari Hara Ginning and Pressing P. Ltd. [2001] 103 Comp Cas 195 (AP) wherein it is stated that it is well-settled that the procedure under Section 433 of the Companies Act is summary. The bona fide dispute implies the existence of substantial ground for the dispute raised. Such a dispute has been made out by the respondent. At this stage reference to some decided cases will be in order. "It is well-settled that a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of a debt which is bona fide disputed by the company.
Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P.) ... vs A.C.K. Krishnaswami And Anr. on 8 January, 1965
A petition presented ostensibly for a winding up order but really to exercise pressure will be dismissed, and under the circumstances may be stigmatised as a scandalous abuse of the process of the court" (Amalgamated Commercial Traders P. Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami [1965] 35 Comp Cas 456, 463 (SC). "The jurisdiction of the court under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, is not that of a court which is essentially meant for settling money disputes between parties, but is to subserve the object of winding up of companies which have not paid their debts or which are unable to pay their debts. Therefore, the first pre-requisite must be to establish prima facie a debt against the respondent. But when a claim or debt is disputed, the proper forum for that is a civil court.