SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 270

C.K. THAKKER & TARUN CHATTERJEE
SEVERN TRENT WATER PURIFICATION, INC. - PETITIONER
Versus
CHLORO CONTROLS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. - RESPONDENT
WITH
PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. . . Appellants
Versus
PURIFICATION, INC. . . Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1351 OF 2008 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6161 of 2006) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1353 of 2008 (@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9530 of 2006)
Decided On: 18/02/2008.

Headnote:

Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 433 , 430 , 431 , 432 , 394 , 428 , 124 , 111 , 109 , 108 , 425 and 439 - Companies Act, 1948 - Sections 224 , 235 , 237 , 233 and 245 - Companies Act, 1867 - Sections 40 and 41 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Severn Trent Water Purification Inc - USA filed a petition for winding up Capital Controls Private Limited on just and equitable grounds -- Learned Company Judge by his order admitted company petition - Aggrieved thereby two appeals came to be filed - One appeal was filed by Chloro Controls Private Limited, which has 50% shareholding in company and other appeal was filed by Company - As both appeals arose out of one and same order passed by Company Court, appeals were heard together and decided by a common judgment – Held , It is thus clear that though case put forward by Severn Trent in winding up petition was as a contributory, factum of Company being Debtor and Severn Trent being Creditor and in spite of dues being admitted by Company, there was non payment on part of Company had been mentioned in petition - Learned counsel for Severn Trent appears to be right that in view of finding by learned Company Judge that petition instituted by Severn Trent as a contributory was maintainable, it was no more necessary for learned Company Judge to consider question whether company petition filed by Severn Trent was maintainable in capacity as a Creditor - It was then contended by learned counsel for Company that ground for winding up of Company under clause was not available to Severn Trent in case it had presented a petition as a Creditor of Company - In this connection, our attention was invited to certain decisions - In our opinion, it would not be appropriate to express any opinion one way or other since we are of view that Division Bench of High Court was not wrong in allowing Severn Trent to argue that point before learned Company Judge as that point did not arise before him earlier - Court may, however, hasten to add that we may not be understood to have recorded a finding that petition presented by Severn Trent is maintainable - Court clarify that as and when matter will be taken up by learned Company Judge, it will be open to Company to raise a contention that no such petition as presented is maintainable in capacity as a Creditor - Petition dismissed

J U D G M E N T

C.K. Thakker, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Both these appeals have been instituted against common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Original Side) dated February 20/21, 2006 in Appeal Nos. 449-450 of 2005 in Company Petition No. 857 of 2004. First appeal has been filed by Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. while the second appeal is filed by Chloro Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals, in brief as noted by the Division Bench of the High Court are as follows.

4. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., USA (hereinafter referred to as "Severn Trent") filed a petition for winding up the Capital Controls (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') on just and equitable grounds under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Company Judge by his order dated 21st April 2005 admitted the company petition. Aggrieved thereby two appeals came to be filed. One appeal (Appeal No. 449 of 2005) was filed by Chloro Controls (India) Private Limited, which has 50% shareholding in the company and the other appeal (Appeal No. 450 of 2005) was filed by the Company. As both the appeals arose out of one and the same order passed by the Company Court, the appeals were heard together and decided by a common judgment.

5. The petitioner set up the case in the petition for winding up of the Company thus:

(i) Severn Trent is a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, USA having its office and place of business at 3000 Advance Lane, Colmar, Pennsylvania 18915, USA.

(ii) Severn Trent was formerly known as Capital Controls (Delaware) Company, Inc.

(iii) In or about 1990, Severn Trent's group acquired Capital Controls Company, Inc. and subsequently the name of Capital Controls Company, Inc. was changed to Severn Trent Water Purification, Inc. with effect from 1st April, 2002.

(iv) On March 31, 2003, Capital Controls (Delaware) Company Inc. amalgamated with and merged into Severn Trent and pursuant to the merger agreement, Capital Controls (Delaware) Company, Inc. went out of existence.

(v) Reference to Severn Trent includes reference to the Capital Controls Company, Inc. as well as Capital Controls (Delaware) Company, Inc. and, therefore, Severn Trent in its present name is entitled to the rights and benefits of the Capital Controls (Delaware) Company, Inc. and Capital Controls Company, Inc. and to file and maintain the company petition.

(vi) Chloro Controls (India) Private Limited, a company controlled by Mr. M.B. Kocha and Capital Controls (Delaware) Company, Inc. set up joint venture company - Capital Controls India Private Limited (the company) in Mumbai with the object of manufacturing (in India) and distributing within the geographical boundaries of India, Nepal, Bhutan and Afghanistan certain gas chlorination water treatment systems and a single product line of brine electro chlorination system from component parts supplied by Severn Trent. For the said purpose, a Joint Venture Agreement was executed by the parties on November 16, 1995.

(vii) Authorised capital of the company is Rs.75,00,000 (Rupees seventy five lakhs) divided into 7,50,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. Severn Trent holds 3,75,000 equity shares being 50% of the equity share capital of the company. The other 50% of the shareholding of the company is held by Chloro Controls (India) Private Limited. (viii) Chloro Controls (India) Private Limited filed Suit No.233 of 2004 against Severn Trent with the sole object of circumventing the dispute resolution provisions in the Joint Venture Agreement entered into between the parties.

(ix) Due to wrongful sta











































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top