Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)

M/S. Vijay Industries vs M/S. Natl Technologies Ltd on 17 December, 2008

20. The principles laid down in the above mentioned cases indicate that if the debt is bona fide disputed, there cannot be "neglect to pay" within the meaning of Section 433(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. If there is no neglect, the deeming provision does not come into play and the winding up on the ground that the company is unable to 14 pay its debts is not substantiated and non-payment of the amount of such a bona fide disputed debt cannot be termed as "neglect to pay"
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 68 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P.) ... vs A.C.K. Krishnaswami And Anr. on 8 January, 1965

In this connection, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. v. A.C.K. 13 Krishnaswami and another (1965) 35 Company Cases 456 (SC), in which this Court held that "It is well-settled that 'a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of the debt which is bona fide disputed by the company. A petition presented ostensibly for a winding up order but really to exercise pressure will be dismissed, and under circumstances may be stigmatized as a scandalous abuse of the process of the court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 209 - Full Document

Mediquip Systems Pvt. Ltd vs Proxima Medical System Gmbh on 17 March, 2005

The principles laid down in the above mentioned judgment have again been reiterated by this Court in Mediquip Systems (P) Ltd. v. Proxima Medical Systems (GMBH) (2005) 7 SCC 42, wherein this Court held that the defence raised by the appellant-company was a substantial one and not mere moonshine and had to be finally adjudicated upon on the merits before the appropriate forum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 111 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1