High Court Of Calcutta
Prabir Kumar Samanta, Tapen Sen
UNIVERSAL BEARING AGENCY - Appellant
Versus
WPIL LIMITED - Respondent
CA 756 Of 2004
Decided On : 03/16/2006
COMPANY WINDING UP - INTEREST COMPONENT - ADMISSION OF WINDING UP PETITION - LIABILITY TO PAY PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT DISPUTED BY COMPANY - INTEREST CAN BE DETERMINED BY COMPANY JUDGE IN WINDING UP PROCEEDINGS - NO NEED FOR SEPARATE LITIGATION - COMPANY CAN BE ORDERED TO BE WOUND UP ON FAILURE TO PAY INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a winding-up petition alleging an unpaid debt of Rs. 14,81,239.20/- for goods sold and delivered to the respondent company. The petition was admitted, and the company was ordered to pay the debt with interest at 12% per annum under section 61 of the Sale of Goods Act from the date of the bills till the date of payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the company had already paid the principal amount but had not paid the interest component. It also noted that the company had submitted before the learned Company Judge that they were agreeable to pay costs.
Issues: Whether the interest component could be determined by the Company Judge in the winding up proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court to hold that the 'forum' of the Company Judge was the appropriate 'forum' for determining as to whether the creditor was entitled to interest where the company admits its liabilities and in fact, pays the amount.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and modified the order dated 31.1.2005 to the extent by ordering the respondents to pay the interest component as ordered on 10.10.2002.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the order dated 31. 1. 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C. A. No. 756 of 2004 arising out of C. P. No. 651 of 2001 whereby and whereunder he was pleased to direct that if the appellants have any further claim in respect of interest then they would be at liberty to take steps before the appropriate forum.
( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the arguments, it will be necessary to advert, very briefly, to the facts which are involved in this case. It appears that the appellants herein filed a winding up petition alleging that the respondent company was indebted to them to the extent of Rs. 14,81,239. 20/- on account of the balance price of the goods sold and delivered which, according to them, the company had failed to pay notwithstanding service of notice under section 434 of the Companies act, 1956. The aforementioned application for winding up was taken up on 10. 10. 2002 by a learned Single Judge of this Court who admitted the application after holding that the said; company was indebted to the appellant/petitioning creditor to the extent of Rs. 14,81,239. 20/-on account of balance price of the goods sold and delivered which the said company was liable to pay together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum under section 61 of the Sale of Goods Act from the date of the respective bills till the date of payment. The appellant/petitioning creditor was also held entitled to costs which was assessed at 300 GMs.
( 3 ) AFTER having held in the manner indicated above, the learned Single Judge admitted the application and directed the appellant/petitioning creditor to cause an advertisement to be punished, one in the' Statesman and the other, in the ananda Bazar Patrika within a period of 3 weeks after vacation and also directed that the matter the made returnable 6 weeks after the vacation.
( 4 ) IT appears that thereafter, the advertisements were published. Thereupon, an appeal was preferred by the company before a Division Bench of this Court but it was dismissed on the ground that after such publication, the winding up notice and the winding up petition had assumed a representative capacity. It further appears that the Division Bench observed that all creditors and contributors will appear before the Company Court either in support of or in opposition to the said winding up proceedings.
( 5 ) BY an order dated 17. 11. 2003, the matter was disposed of by directing the respondent company to make payment of Rs. 14,81,239. 20/-in 10 equal monthly instalments and the first of such instalments was to be paid by 15th December, 2003 and all subsequent monthly instalments by the 15th day of each and every succeeding month. In default of the payment of the first instalment or of any one of the instalments, the Official Liquidator was directed to take possession of the assets or properties of the company. Nothing was said with regard to the interests and costs which had been ordered by the other learned judge of this Court by his order dated 10. 10. 2002.
( 6 ) IT appears that thereafter on 13. 1. 2005 the matter again came up before the learned company Judge and it was observed that the payment of Rs. 14,81,239. 20/- had already been made by the company but the cost of 300 GMs had not been paid along with the last instalment. However, the company submitted that they were agreeable to pay the costs in spite of the fact that they had paid the last instalment except the cost and submitted that the appellant/petitioning creditor should be asked to accept the same. The learned judge, after having noted the aforementioned submissions, held that since a "winding up order" was discretionary and since, the principal amount had already been paid by the company, it would only be proper to direct the appellant/ petitioning creditor that if they had any further claims, in respect of interest, they would be at liberty to apply before the appropriate forum. In other
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.