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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
Tasneem Patel - Petitioner
Vs.
AAT Academy India Limited (formerly known as Access Atlantech Edutainment (India) Limited) – Respondents
C.P. No. 257 of 2013
Decided On : 04–08–2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr. P. Giridharan
For Respondent: Mr. H. Karthik Seshadri for Mr. N.P. Vijay Kumar

Headnote:

Companies Act, 1956 – Sections 433(e), 433(f), 434(1) and 439 – Winding up of the respondent company – Promissory note – Instant Company Petition is instituted by the petitioner Mrs.Tasneem Patel, claiming herself to be the secured creditor under Sections 433(e), 433(f), 434(1) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company AAT Academy India Limited on the alleged failure of the respondent AAT Academy to pay its debt, which is claimed to be due under promissory note dated 15.4.2010 and to appoint the Official Liquidator to take charge of the affairs of the company and for costs. – Held, It is stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent-company is going concern indulging in providing education in specialized fields of studies and it is also commercially solvent. – Admittedly, the respondent-company has not become defunct or closed. – Business of the company is only providing educational services employing more than 60 persons. – In such circumstances, winding-up of the same at the instance of the Petitioning-Creditor would deprive the employment of the persons with the respondent organization, resulting in great prejudice and serious hardship to them. – Respondent-company being only a guarantor, in the absence of resolution to sell the shares of the company or even act as a guarantor without a resolution, the alleged transactions by the Petitioning-Company are subject matter of proof and evidence. – While so, ordering winding-up would be like pressurizing the respondent to pay the money. – Even presuming that there is a dispute with the respective debt payable, in the given circumstances, the dispute can be resolved only before the Civil Court and not through the company Court. – Company Petition Dismissed

ORDER :

The instant Company Petition is instituted by the petitioner Mrs.Tasneem Patel, claiming herself to be the secured creditor under Sections 433(e), 433(f), 434(1) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), seeking winding up of the respondent company AAT Academy India Limited (hereinafter referred to “respondent company”) on the alleged failure of the respondent AAT Academy to pay its debt, which is claimed to be due under promissory note dated 15.4.2010 and to appoint the Official Liquidator to take charge of the affairs of the company and for costs.

2. The respondent company, which was incorporated on 17th November 1999 as Access Atlantech Technologies (India) Private Limited, subsequently changed its name to Access Atlantech Edutainment (India) Limited, changed its name to AAT Academy India Limited and consequent to the change of name, fresh certificate of incorporation was issued as per Annexure No. 1. The main object of the respondent company is to provide generalised and specialised education and training in the field of computers, software, applications, systems analysis and design, software engineering, audio engineering, video engineering, multimedia work, work-based learning, and to design, develop, market and export all kinds of software application, services and products in areas like graphics, communications, operating systems, man machine interface database, expert system, Computer Aided Designs, Computer Aided Manufacturing, Computer aided Software Engineering, internet and e commerce activities, etc.

3.1. According to the petitioner, when the Promoter Director and CEO of the respondent Company [for short, “Borrower”] approached her for loan for the expansion of business, she provided a sum of Rs.37,50,000/-under a promissory note dated 15th April, 2010, which is shown as Annexure No. 4 and the Managing Director of the respondent company, in turn, executed a Guarantee Agreement dated 17th April, 2010 enclosed as Annexure No. 5, as security for repayment of the loan including interest, costs, charges and / or other monies availed by the Borrower. The further case of the petitioner is that in addition to the guarantee provided under the Guarantee Agreement, the respondent pledged 1,00,000 Equity Shares held by it in M/s Greycells Education Ltd., which was formerly known as Greycells Entertainment Limited [for short, “Greycells”) in her favour vide Board Resolution dated 12.4.2010 (Annexure No. 6). During October 2010, since the borrower failed to repay the loan amount along with the outstanding interest @18% p.a. and as it was agreed by the parties to enhance the rate of interest to 24% per annum from August 2011, the petitioner by letter dated 03.10.2011, called upon the borrower to make payment of the outstanding amount followed by another communication dated 11th November, 2011, enclosed as Annexure No. 7, stating that the amount recoverable from sale of shares, which would be approximately Rs. 21 Lacs, would be appropriated towards part payment principal and interest. In order to recover the outstanding amount, the petitioner also by letter dated 10.02.2012, intimated the Borrower that if he fails to repay the amount of Rs.4,12,500/-towards principal and interest to date, by 16th February, 2012, she will be compelled to sell the 1,00,000 Equity Shares of Greycells pledged by him as security. However, since he has failed and neglected to pay and honour his commitments, she sold the 1,00,000 equity shares of Greycells pledged by him at Rs.19/-per share, in total, to a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-and adjusted the proceeds towards outstanding interest of Rs.4,24,315/-and balance towards principal loan amount after adjustment for stamp duty on transfer of shares and informed the same to the Borrower by letter dated 24th February 2012 (Annexure No. 9) besides indicating that a sum of Rs.22,69,565/-is due as outstanding balance principal loan amount as on that date. She further asked him




























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top