1. Petition for winding up of a company under Section 439 of the Companies Act following non-payment of dividends declared contingent upon the realization of commissions. (Para 1 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 397
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., K. Wanchoo, S. Sikri, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 515 and 516 of 1964
Decided On : 08-01-1965
Important Points
A winding-up petition cannot be used to enforce a debt that is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds. If the dispute is genuine and not a means to hide insolvency, there is no "neglect to pay" under Section 434, and the company cannot be wound up.
Subject
Company Law - Winding Up
Act Referred
COMPANIES ACT: S.207, S.397, S.398, S.433, S.434, S.439
Headnote
(A) Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 434 and 439 - Winding up on ground of inability to pay debts - Debt bona fide disputed - 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 - A petition presented ostensibly for a winding-up order but really to exercise pressure will be dismissed - If the debt is not disputed on some substantial ground, the court may decide it on the petition, but if the debt is bona fide disputed, there cannot be "neglect to pay" within Section 434(1)(a) (Paras 13, 14).
(B) Companies Act, 1956 - Section 207 - Declaration of dividend - Validity of resolution making payment contingent on receipt of funds - Whether a resolution declaring a dividend to be payable beyond the statutory period of three months is a nullity or whether such a resolution is severable constitutes a substantial question of law (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
A private company declared a dividend but resolved that payment would be effected only when commissions due from its principals were realized. Upon receiving legal advice that this resolution was invalid and did not constitute a proper declaration of dividend under the law, the company refused to pay the dividends. A shareholder, after serving a statutory notice, filed a petition for the winding up of the company on the ground of its inability to pay its debts. While the Single Judge dismissed the petition noting the company's solvency, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision and ordered winding up, holding that commercial solvency is irrelevant if a debt remains unpaid despite a statutory demand.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the debt in respect of the dividends was bona fide disputed by the company. The company had acted upon legal advice regarding the interpretation of the law and did not dispute the debt to hide its inability to pay, as it was a flourishing concern. The questions regarding the validity and severability of the dividend resolution raised substantial legal issues.
Issues: Whether a company can be wound up under Section 439 of the Companies Act when the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, and whether such a dispute precludes the finding of "neglect to pay" under Section 434.
Ratio Decidendi: A winding-up petition cannot be used as a mechanism to enforce a debt that is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds. Where a company disputes a debt in good faith and not as a cloak to conceal insolvency, the deeming provision of inability to pay debts under Section 434(1)(a) does not apply because there is no "neglect to pay."
Result: Appeals allowed.
(B) Companies Act, 1956 - Section 207 - Declaration of dividend - Validity of resolution making payment contingent on receipt of funds - Whether a resolution declaring a dividend to be payable beyond the statutory period of three months is a nullity or whether such a resolution is severable constitutes a substantial question of law (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
A private company declared a dividend but resolved that payment would be effected only when commissions due from its principals were realized. Upon receiving legal advice that this resolution was invalid and did not constitute a proper declaration of dividend under the law, the company refused to pay the dividends. A shareholder, after serving a statutory notice, filed a petition for the winding up of the company on the ground of its inability to pay its debts. While the Single Judge dismissed the petition noting the company's solvency, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision and ordered winding up, holding that commercial solvency is irrelevant if a debt remains unpaid despite a statutory demand.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the debt in respect of the dividends was bona fide disputed by the company. The company had acted upon legal advice regarding the interpretation of the law and did not dispute the debt to hide its inability to pay, as it was a flourishing concern. The questions regarding the validity and severability of the dividend resolution raised substantial legal issues.
Issues: Whether a company can be wound up under Section 439 of the Companies Act when the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, and whether such a dispute precludes the finding of "neglect to pay" under Section 434.
Ratio Decidendi: A winding-up petition cannot be used as a mechanism to enforce a debt that is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds. Where a company disputes a debt in good faith and not as a cloak to conceal insolvency, the deeming provision of inability to pay debts under Section 434(1)(a) does not apply because there is no "neglect to pay."
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether non-payment of dividends based on legal advice regarding the validity of a contingent dividend resolution constitutes an inability to pay debts under the Companies Act. (Para 11 , 12 )
3. The company bona fide disputed the debt based on legal advice concerning the interpretation of Section 207 of the Companies Act regarding the validity of contingent dividends. (Para 14 )
4. A winding up petition cannot be used to enforce a debt bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, as such dispute precludes a finding of neglect to pay. (Para 13 , 14 )
5. Appeals allowed, the order for winding up set aside, and the petition dismissed. (Para 15 )
6. Can a winding up petition be used to recover a disputed debt?
No, a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of a debt that is bona fide disputed by the company. Petitions presented ostensibly for winding up but used to exercise pressure may be dismissed as an abuse of the process of the court. (Para 13 )
7. What is the effect of a bona fide dispute on the presumption of inability to pay debts under Section 434(1)(a)?
If a debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, there is no neglect to pay within the meaning of Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. Consequently, the deeming provision that the company is unable to pay its debts does not come into play. (Para 14 )
8. Does a company's reliance on legal advice to dispute a debt indicate a bona fide dispute?
Yes, where a company receives legal advice regarding the validity of a resolution—such as the interpretation of Section 207 of the Companies Act—and acts upon it, the dispute is considered bona fide, provided it is not a cloak to hide financial inability. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
Sikri, J.
These two appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras, directing the winding up of the appellant, the Amalgamated Commercial Traders Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as the appellant-company.
2. The appellant-company was incorporated as a private company limited by shares on January 29, 1948. It had an issued and subscribed capital of Rs. 1,00,000 divided into 1,000 fully paid shares of Rs. 100 each. The company had the sole selling agency of the Indian Sugar and Refineries Ltd., Hospet, and of the Salar Jung Mills Ltd. A.C.K. Krishnaswami and C. Hariprasad were the directors of the company till May 2, 1960.
3. On December 5, 1959, a notice was given regarding the calling of the eleventh annual general meeting of the company on Wednesday, December 30, 1959. In the circular annexed to the notice, it was stated that" your directors feel that they must advert to the fact that our principals, the Indian Sugar and Refineries Ltd. and the Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd., have unjustifiably and unaccountably withheld commission accruing to us as from 1st January, 1959, and have not remitted any part of it, in spite of repeated demands. We have, therefore, been put to inconvenience and have not been able to make our tax payments in time. The authorities have served on our principals notices for collection of our taxes from them." It was further added that " as on September 30, 1959, we compute that after making payment of taxes on our account to the Government, the balance payable to us by our principals will roughly amount to over Rs. 1,90,000. You will note that the disbursement of the proposed dividends to our shareholders will depend on our being able to collect outstandings from our principals."
4. On December 30, 1959, a dividend was declared and it was resolved " that a dividend of Rs. 100 per share (taxable) on the equity shares be paid to such shareholders as appear on the register of members as on date, payments to be effected when commission due from principals are realised." It appears that serious differences arose between the directors and the shareholders, and on February 23, 1960, a requisition was sent by some shareholders, including S.P. Parasrampuria, to call a meeting to consider and pass a resolution, the substance of which was to constitute a committee consisting of three shareholders to look after the management of the company. The managing director, A.C.K. Krishnaswami, sent a lengthy reply to the requisitionists on March 7, 1960, explaining the affairs of the company. However, the meeting asked for was called for April 9, 1960.
5. On March 22, 1960, A.C.K. Krishnaswami filed a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, praying that the holding of the meeting called for April 9, 1960, be restrained. By order dated March 25, 1960, the High Court stayed the holding of the meeting. By a resolution dated April 12, 1960, S.P. Parasrampuria was co-opted as a director of the company with effect from April 12, 1960. It appears that a compromise was arrived at between the parties to the petition under Sections 397 and 398, and 216 shares of the appellant-company, registered in the name of A.C.K. Krishnaswami and/or Factors Private Ltd. were sold at Rs. 800 per share to the party of Parasrampuria. Parasrampuria filed an affidavit withdrawing all allegations and so did Krishnaswami. The petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act was withdrawn and it was accordingly dismissed on April 20, 1960, but this was not the end of the dispute between the parties.
6. On May 5, 1960, one M. R. Banka wrote to the company claiming dividend on the 216 shares alleged to have been purchased by him and requested that no payment be made to the previous registered holders. On May 17, 1960, Hariprasad wrote to the company demanding the payment of Rs. 1,750 as net dividend on the 25 shares held by him on December 30, 1959, The managi
