IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.
Sulakshana Circuits Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Rolex Meters Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Company Petition No. 170 of 2011
Decided On : 31.10.2013
Companies Act, 1956 - Section 433(e) and (f) - provides that in cases where the company is unable to pay its debts the court can order winding up - liabilities exceed the assets does not necessarily mean that the company is unable to pay its debts - Acknowledged and certified - Stamped endorsement - Creditors winding up petition was admitted and after completion of pleadings petitioner examined and marked and respondent examined and marked - Company petition was thereafter heard in part by then Company Judge who specifically by order released matter from caption for orders and posted before regular Company judge - Again it appears to have been heard but released from caption orders reserved by order - Thereafter matter was posted before this Court on and company petition was finally heard and was reserved for orders - This company petition is therefore being disposed of by this order - It is alleged that petitioner company sold supplied and delivered PCBs from time to time to respondent company invoices cum delivery challans and petitioner company is figuring as one of sundry creditors in annual accounts and balance sheet of respondent company - Held, As held by Supreme Court in aforesaid decision in present case also it is not shown that respondent company is unable to meet its liability as and when they accrued - It is also accepted in present case that respondent company is a profit making company and not a single instance of any creditors legal action before any forum was pointed out - In view of that therefore since dispute exists about debt as claimed by petitioner company do not find any justification for ordering winding up of respondent company is accordingly answered against petitioner -There are neither pleadings nor any evidence to support petitioners claim that respondent company is liable to be wound up on ground that order would be just and equitable - On contrary facts on record clearly show that a profit making company for last more than three years is not required to be wound up on any ground - Petition dismissed (Para 24)
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.
1. This is a creditor’s winding up petition under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956. This company petition was admitted on 24.10.2004 and after completion of the pleadings, petitioner examined P.W.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A15 and the respondent examined R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R15. The company petition was, thereafter, heard in part by the then Company Judge, who specifically by order dated 11.03.2013 released the matter from the caption for orders and posted before the regular Company judge. Again, it appears to have been heard but released from the caption ‘orders reserved’ by order dated 24.07.2013. Thereafter, the matter was posted before this Court on 03.10.2013 and the company petition was finally heard on 04.10.2013 and 07.10.3013 and was reserved for orders. This company petition is, therefore, being disposed of by this order.
2. The averments in the petition states that the petitioner company is a public limited company and that it has been engaged in manufacturing activity of Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) of various descriptions and selling it to various clients of the petitioner company. The authorized capital of the petitioner company is Rs. 12,00,00,000/-divided into 1,20,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. It is stated that the respondent company is a private limited company incorporated on 07.09.2004 and that respondent company, inter alia, carries on business as manufacturer, purchaser, processor etc. in populated, loaded or stuffed printed circuit boards, electronic circuit boards and all other king of circuit boards and also deals in electricity meters, water meters and other statistical meters or instruments. It is stated that the authorized share capital of the respondent company is Rs. 10,00,000/- divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each.
3. It is alleged that the petitioner company sold, supplied and delivered PCBs from time to time to the respondent company under invoices cum delivery challans and the petitioner company is figuring as one of the sundry creditors in the annual accounts and balance sheet of the respondent company. It is alleged that as on 07.04.2010 the respondent company was due a sum of Rs. 14,47,540/- payable to the petitioner company towards arrears for supply of material already received by the respondent company, as per the terms of invoices together with contracted rate of interest at 24%. It is alleged that all the PCBs supplied to the respondent company by the petitioner company under invoices cum delivery challans were acknowledged and certified with the stamped endorsement ‘RECEIVED CONTENTS VERIFIED’. It is alleged that though 90 days grace period for payment is allowed, the respondent company has been making payment from time to time but committed default since January 2009, as stated in para 12(ii) of the petition. The overdue and pending payments together with interest payable thereon for the overdue period is mentioned in tabulated form in para 12(iii) and as such, on the basis of certificate of the statutory Auditor of the petitioner company certifying that the respondent company is due a sum of Rs. 14,47,540/- to the petitioner company, the present company petition is filed claiming the said amount, as the debt repayable by the respondent but remaining unpaid in spite of requests.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner company made several demands but the respondent company gave false assurances and avoided payment. The respondent company, thus, failed to honour its promise on account of severe financial crunch. Hence, finally legal notice dated 27.12.2010 was issued by the petitioner company demanding the said due amount with interest. That notice was as well followed by a statutory legal notice dated 01.03.2011 under Section 434 of the Companies Act, which was duly served and invoked a reply from the respondent company dated 11.03.2011 giving vague and untenable reasons as to reconciliation of the accounts betw
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.