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

2024 Supreme(Del) 168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dharmesh Sharma, J.
Times Innovative Media Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Space Turtle Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CO.PET. 761 of 2015 & CO.APPL. 815 of 2019
Decided On : 05-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora, Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Mr. Yash Srivastava, Mr. Sudhanshuy Kumar Chouby and Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
None, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that winding up petitions at a nascent stage should be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in accordance with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013 and relevant case law.

Headnote:

Winding Up - Companies Act - 433(e), 434, 439 - IBC, 2016 - Section 434 - Action Ispat and Power Limited v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 641 - Citicorp International Limited v. Shiv- Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Limited, 2023:DHC:5206

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner company sought winding up of the respondent company for non-payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 1,46,97,609/- along with interest. The respondent company engaged the petitioner for advertising services but defaulted in making payments, leading to the legal notice and the present winding up petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent company was unable to pay its debt, but due to the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Companies Act, 2013, the winding up petition was at a nascent stage and no provisional/official liquidator had been appointed. The court decided to transfer the petition to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for further consideration.

Issues: The issues revolved around the respondent company's non-payment of outstanding dues, the applicability of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the transfer of the winding up petition to the NCLT.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the decision in Action Ispat and Power Limited v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 641, to determine that winding up proceedings at a nascent stage should be transferred to the NCLT. The court also considered its own judgment in Citicorp International Limited v. Shiv- Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Limited, 2023:DHC:5206, which emphasized the transfer of such petitions to the NCLT.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition and transferred it to the NCLT for further consideration. The parties were directed to appear before the NCLT on a specified date, and the electronic record of the petition was to be transmitted to the NCLT by the Registry.

JUDGMENT

1. This Company Petition has been preferred under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company - M/s Space Turtle Private Limited, on the ground of non-payment of outstanding dues to the petitioner company amounting to Rs. 1,46,97,609/- arising out of purchase orders for the period 01.09.2014 to 31.03.2015, along with due interest.

BRIEF FACTS

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner company is engaged in the business of outdoor advertising and has the license for display and management of advertisements at several places in Delhi including the DND Flyover. On the other hand, the respondent company is in the business of Real Estate and allied activities, including the development, marketing and sale of residential/commercial properties in the Delhi- NCR region.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent company engaged the petitioner company to place and display certain corporate advertisements of its company at various desired places in Delhi, pursuant to which 7 purchase orders were placed by the respondent company, for the period 1.09.2014 to 31.03.2015.

4. Thereafter, respective invoices against the purchase orders for the relevant period were raised by the petitioner company, and it is stated that the same were duly received by the respondent company. Further, per the agreed upon terms and conditions, the outstanding amounts were to be paid by the respondent company within 60 days from the date of receipt of invoices and in case of delay the respondent company was liable to pay interest at 18% as well.

5. As stated by the petitioner, the respondent company defaulted in making payments on various occasions and the cheques provided were also dishonored for several reasons. Vide email dated 15.06.2015, the petitioner company brought to the notice of the respondent company that an amount of Rs. 1,46,97,609/- (excluding interest) was outstanding. In response to the same, the respondent company acknowledged and admitted their debt and liability towards the petitioner company to the tune of Rs. 97,45,032/- and further stated that the balance amount of Rs. 41,14,763/- will be booked in the books of accounts of the respondent company upon the receipt of respective invoices. Such invoices were sent to the respondent company soon after, and the same were duly received.

6. The petitioner company served a legal notice dated 17.07.2015 to the respondent through its counsel, calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 1,46,97,609/- along with 18% interest p.a. thereby totaling to the amount of Rs. 1,65,74,026/-. It is stated that the respondent company has neither repaid the sum nor responded to the legal notice, hence the petitioner chose to move the present winding up petition, on the basis that the respondent company is unable to pay its legally recoverable debt/liability and has mala fide intention to misappropriate the amount, and is therefore liable to be wound up.

ANALYSIS & DECISION

7. Evidently, the Respondent Company is unable to pay its debt in the normal and ordinary course of its business, hence, the present petition has been filed. However, from a perusal of the record, it appears that neither a Provisional Liquidator nor an Official Liquidator has been appointed in the present petition and as such, this winding up petition has been a non-starter.

8. Given that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016[IBC] has since been enacted, along with the introduction of Companies Act, 2013[The Act] and in particular Section 434 of the said Act, the present petition does not deserve to continue before this Court as it is still at an initial stage and no Provisional/Official Liquidator has been appointed in this matter. Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for the transfer of proceedings relating to winding up, pending before High Courts, to the National Company Law Tribunal[NCLT], and reads as under:

    "434. Transfer of certain pending proceedings

    (1) On such date as may

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