Winding up - disputed debt

Dispute in relation to a debt means dispute between the petitioner and the respondent company. There is a privity of contract, and dispute between third party and the respondent company is not relevant.

Sunil Kothari v. Today Homes, (2011) 107 SCL 216 (Delhi)

Winding-up and registered office of the company

Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Hermonite Associates Ltd, [2011] 105 SCL 421 (Delhi)

"While examining the words 'has served on the company, b y causing it to be delivered at the registered office, by registered post or otherwise in section 434(1)(a), reference must be made to Section 51. The word 'served' in section 434(1)(a) is followed by the words 'by causing it to be delivered at its registered office.' The latter words have to be given due effect .... The document which includes notice under Section 434(1)(a) may be treated as served if it is 'sent' in the manner specified under Section 51.... Otherwise, by keeping the registered office closed and locked, service of notice under Section 434(1)(a) or documents under Section 51 cannot be effected...  Any other interpretation would make the provisions of the Act unworkable and will be detrimental to third parties, creditors or the members."


also  (1989) 1 SCC 264 - sending by (R) post is sufficient compliance.

winding-up should not be a method to arm twist

See IBA Health (I) P Ltd v. Info Drive Systems Sdn Bhd., [2010] 104 SCL 367 (SC)

A company court therefore should be guarded from such vexatious abuse of the process and cannot function as a Debt collecting agency and should not permit a party to unreasonably set the law in motion, especially when the aggrieved party has a remedy elsewhere.

Award / Decree and winding up

433(1)(a) can be invoked after obtaining award / decree.




Title

• Madhuban Private Limited v. Narain Dass Gokul Chand, 1971 (41) CompCas 685

• In re Unique Cardboard Box Mfg Co. Pvt Ltd, 1978 (48) Comp Cas 604

• All India General Transport Corporation Limited v. Raj Kumar Mittal, 1978 (48) Comp Cas 604

• Seethai Mills Limited, 1980 (50) Comp Cas 422

• Sarabhai Machinery v. Haryana Detergents Limited, 1986 (60) Comp Cas 169

• Sugam Constructions Private Limited (unreported Bombay HC)

• National Aluminium Company Limited v. SGN Telecoms (reported on Manupatra)

• 1997 88 Comp Cas 673

• 1971 41 Comp Cas 685

• 1984 56 Comp Cas 165

• 2007 (5) Bom CR 752





Contrary case-laws

Title

• Kitti Steels Ltd. vs. Sanghi Industries Ltd., [2010] 154 Comp Cas 102 (AP)

• National Research Development Corporation vs. Electro Flux (P.) Ltd., [2005] 127 Comp Cas 23 (AP)

• Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. vs. Spartek Ceramics India Ltd., [2005] 57 SCL 467 (AP)

• Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. CRC Carrier Ltd., [2001] 107 Comp Cas 288 (Bom)

• Ishwar Industries Ltd. vs. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., MANU/TN/2947/2009

• Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh vs. North India Petro Chemical Ltd. and Another, [1994] 79 Comp Cas 835 (SC)

Kesar Enterprises Ltd. vs. IDI Ltd., [2002] 112 Comp Cas 174 (Bom)

I.C.D.S Ltd. vs. Asha Latex and Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd, [2003]144 Comp Cas 581 (Bom).

Rediffusion – Dentsu, Young & Rubicam P. Ltd vs. Solidaire India Ltd., [2008] 145 Comp Cas 693 (Mad)

Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. Steel Strips Wheels Ltd., MANU/PH/0571/1997.

Pankaj Aluminium Industries P. Ltd. vs. Pankaj Extrusions Ltd., [2009] 149 Comp Cas 660 (Guj)

Recalling winding-up

Simply because the winding up order is passed, the company cannot be restrained from approaching the court for the purpose of recalling or reviewing the winding up order.


Shreeji Concast v. Shreeji Oxygen, [2007]138CompCas717(Guj)

Winding up & Employment Due

Employment dues are 'debts' within the scope of Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Pawan Kumar Khullar v. Kaushal Leather Board Limited, AIR 1996 MP 85.


But See Contrary view taken in  116 Comp Cas 448 (2003), Suryanarayana v. Stiles Ltd. (AP)