CL : Where respondent-company admitted debt due to petitioner several times and failed to establish its counter claim against petitioner, winding up petition filed by petitioner as creditor was maintainable
■■■
[2015] 53 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay)
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.
v.
Capital Controls India (P.) Ltd.
G.S. PATEL, J.
CO. PETITION NO. 857 OF 2004
DECEMBER 18, 2014
Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 / Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up - Petitioner had filed winding up petition against respondent as a contributory but same was dismissed and petitioner was allowed to amend its petition to claim winding up as a creditor of company on failure of company to pay admitted dues - Whether since respondent company had admitted debt due several times and failed to establish its counter-claim against petitioner, defence raised by respondent was invalid and, therefore, winding up petition filed by petitioner as creditor was maintainable and admissible - Held, yes [Paras 49, 50, 51 & 52]
■■■
[2015] 53 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay)
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.
v.
Capital Controls India (P.) Ltd.
G.S. PATEL, J.
CO. PETITION NO. 857 OF 2004
DECEMBER 18, 2014
Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 / Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up - Petitioner had filed winding up petition against respondent as a contributory but same was dismissed and petitioner was allowed to amend its petition to claim winding up as a creditor of company on failure of company to pay admitted dues - Whether since respondent company had admitted debt due several times and failed to establish its counter-claim against petitioner, defence raised by respondent was invalid and, therefore, winding up petition filed by petitioner as creditor was maintainable and admissible - Held, yes [Paras 49, 50, 51 & 52]
No comments:
Post a Comment