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

1985 Supreme(Kar) 553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Venkatachaliah and Vithal Rao, JJ.
Hegde and Golay Limited —Appellant
Vs.
State Bank of India —Respondent
Original Side Appeal No. 18 of 1985
Decided on : 20-11-1985

Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
Mr. Shekar Shetty, for the Appellant
Mr. S. G. Sundaraswamy, S. Ramaswamy Iyengar, for the Respondent

Headnote:

The High Court of Karnataka, in this case, adjudicated on a creditor's winding-up petition brought by the State Bank of India (SBI) against Hegde and Golay Limited (HGL), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petition alleged that HGL was unable to pay its debts and that it was just and equitable that the company be wound up. The court examined various issues, including the existence and extent of the debt, the company's ability to pay its debts, and whether it was just and equitable to wind up the company.

Fact of the Case:

HGL, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, was facing a winding-up petition filed by the State Bank of India (SBI). SBI claimed that HGL owed them a substantial sum of money and that the company was unable to pay its debts. HGL contested the petition, denying the existence and extent of the debt and arguing that it was not just and equitable to wind up the company.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court of Karnataka found that a substantial part of the debt claimed by SBI was established and that HGL's defense was not substantial or in good faith. The court also found that HGL was unable to pay its debts and that it was just and equitable to wind up the company. The court rejected HGL's various contentions, including the argument that SBI was a secured creditor and could not maintain a winding-up petition without valuing its security.

Issues: 1. Whether SBI, as a secured creditor, could maintain a winding-up petition without valuing its security. 2. Whether the debt claimed by SBI was established and whether HGL's defense was substantial or in good faith. 3. Whether HGL was unable to pay its debts. 4. Whether it was just and equitable to wind up HGL.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a secured creditor is not required to value its security in order to maintain a winding-up petition. 2. The court found that a substantial part of the debt claimed by SBI was established and that HGL's defense was not substantial or in good faith. The court relied on various evidence, including promissory notes, balance sheets, and revival letters, to support its findings. 3. The court found that HGL was unable to pay its debts, as evidenced by its inability to meet current demands and its overall financial स्थिति. 4. The court found that it was just and equitable to wind up HGL, considering factors such as the company's inability to pay its debts, the lack of a viable business plan, and the interests of the creditors.

Final Decision: The High Court of Karnataka allowed SBI's winding-up petition and ordered the winding up of HGL. The court rejected HGL's application for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court, finding that the appeal did not involve substantial questions of law of general importance.

ORDER

Venkatachaliah, J.—This appeal is by Hegde and Golay Limited ('Company'), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, (the 'Act') and is directed against the order dated 26-7-1985 made by Bopanna, J., allowing a Creditor's winding-up petition brought by the State Bank of India (the 'Bank') and ordering the winding-up of the Company on grounds that the Company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 433(e) of the Act and that it is also otherwise "Just and Equitable" that the Company be wound-up.

The Bank claimed that as on 31-3-1980 a sum of Rs. 2,93,62,036 09 (exclusive of interest accruing subsequent to 1-4-1980) stood due and owing by the Company and that the Company was in fact, and must also be deemed to be, unable to pay its debts ; and that in view of the several circumstances alleged by the Bank it was also, otherwise, just and equitable that the Company be wound-up.

This creditor's winding-up petition which was the unfortunate culmination of a greatly strained Banker Constituent relationship was pending for over 5 years.

2. We have heard Sri Shekhar Shetty, learned Counsel for the appellant. The petitioning creditor having filed a Caveat, Sri S. G. Sundaraswamy and Sri S. Ramaswamy Iyengar, appeared for the Bank.

We have been taken through the order under appeal and the evidence on record. We are satisfied that the findings of the learned Company Judge that the petitioning-creditor has established the existence of a substantial part of the debt claimed by it and that the defence of the Company is not substantial nor in good faith do not call for interference. They are supportable even on the undisputed documentary evidence, leaving out altogether the other evidence which might admit of some debase on certain legal technicalities.

We will state the reasons that weigh with us for our inability to accept the several contentions which Sri Shekhar Shetty ably... and at great length presented at the hearing on admission.

3. We may, however, briefly set-out the circumstances leading-up to the winding-up petition :

The Company was incorporated in the year 1965 as a Private Limited Company with the object, in collaboration with Golay S.A. of Switzerland, of promoting an industry for the manufacture and sale of 'Horological instruments' and 'Printed Circuit-Boards'. The Company has its registered offices and its factory-establishment in Bangalore. The share-capital or the Company is Rs. 50 lakhs consisting of 50 thousand snares of Rs. 100/-fully paid-up. The enterprise as conceived by the promoter Sri B.T. Shankar Hegde, the Chairman and Managing Director, envisaged the Company as the mam coordinating unit and 18 ancillary units, each of which was a separate company. The shares of the Company were closely held between Sri B.T.S. Hegde and his wife Smt. Shaila S. Hegde. Between them they originally held 51 per cent of the shares and the Swiss collaborators 49 per cent. Upon the said Swiss Company having itself gone into liquidation, its share-holding also came into the hands of Sri Shankar Hegde.

The Company became a public company from 27-6-1974. The Banking relations of the company with the State Bank of India commenced in the year 19/3, the Bank having in principle agreed to finance the Company's ventures and to look after its banking-requirements and transactions. The Bank provided funds, fairly on a large scale, both for the capital needs of the Company and also towards working capital. The working relationship between the Bank and the Company appeared to be (sic) fairly satisfactory till 1976, whereafter troubles started each party accusing me other of non-performance of its obligations.

Several attempts appeared to have been made to sort-out the differences ; but they failed. Matters came to a head in 1979. On 12-7-1979 (Exhibit-P. 98) the Bank called-up the accounts and demanded repayment of the sums found due under foot of the several accounts. This demand was followed-up by the statutory demand (












































































































































































































































































































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