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

1994 Supreme(Del) 252

P.K.BAHRI
WIMCO LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SIDVINK PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Richa Maini, Shiv Kumar, U.K.CHAUDHARY

P. K. Bahri

( 1 ) THIS petition has been brought under Sections 433 and 434 of the Indian Companies Act seeking winding up of the respondent-company on the ground that respondent-company has neglected to clear its debt despite statutory notice.

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are that one Mr. A. N. Prasad was an employee of the petitioner-company and was one of the Directors of the respondent-company and vide lease/licence agreement dated July 22,1987, Flat No. L-27 located on the first floor in Kailash Colony, New Delhi, was taken for the residence of Mr. Prasad from the respondent-company by the petitioner-company for a limited period. Under the terms of the said agreement Rs. 3,00,000. 00 were given by the petitioner to the respondent-company as security deposit which was not to bear any interest and was to be refunded on vacation of the flat_vide term No. 7 in the agreement, Mr. Prasad has also taken a personal liability for refund of the said amount and had agreed that the said amount could be adjusted in his salary and other dues which 261 may be recoverable from the petitioner-company. Admittedly on June 14,1988, on Mr. Prasad resigning from the service of the petitioner-company t


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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top