JUDGMENT :

Paresh Upadhyay, J.

Prayer: Appeals preferred under Section 483 of the Companies Act and Clause 15 of Letters Patent read with Order 36 Rule 1 of OS Rules against the judgment and order dated 06 December 2021, as amended vide orders dated 15 December 2021 and 23 December 2021 in Company Petition No. 363 of 2015, C.A.No.888 of 2015 and C.A.No.55 of 2020 respectively.

1. These appeals are filed by the respondent of the Company Petition No.363 of 2015, challenging the order of Company Court, ordering :-

(i) admission of the winding up petition, which is filed invoking Sections 433 (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, and

(ii) appointment of the Official Liquidator, High Court of Madras as Provisional Liquidator.

Since, in the first order of the Company Court dated 06.12.2021, there are few corrections vide orders dated 15.12.2021 and 23.12.2021, there are three orders before us, but the substance thereof is as noted above. The challenge in these three appeals is to those three orders, ventilating various grievances including about disposal / pendency of some interim application(s) in the Company Petition.

2.1 Mr. V.Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant Company has addressed the Court at length. It is noted that he has extensively taken this Court through the paper books, running into few hundred pages. He has also relied on number of authorities, which are quoted here below.

2.2 It is noted that various submissions are made on behalf of the appellant, as raised as grounds of appeal(s) as mentioned in the memo of appeals, the substance thereof is that, what the petitioner claims, can at the best be said to be due and not the debt. Further, there is serious dispute about that amount being payable by the appellant to SR Technics and further that, the said dispute is bonafide and also a substantial one. It is therefore submitted that the winding up petition ought not to have been admitted by the Company Court.

2.3 The bone contention on behalf of the appellant is two fold. Firstly that the documents relied by the petitioner Credit Suisse, Switzerland are not stamped and therefore the Courts in India will not take cognisance thereof and secondly, the S.R.Technics did not have valid license from the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and therefore it could not have legally maintained the Aircrafts / Engines of the appellant Company and consequently no amount could be said to be payable by the appellant to it and thereby there is bonafide dispute with regard to the said payment.

2.4 Over and above this, number of submissions are made which are less relevant for the purpose of deciding the point at issue as noted in para 5. It is also noted that on behalf of the appellant arguments were advanced on 05.01.2022 and 10.01.2022 for hours. Attention of the Court was invited to hundreds of pages in different paper books, dealing with which would result in deciding some of the points to be tried in Company Petition itself, which would be not in the interest of any party, more particularly the appellant (for some of the reasons noted herein after) and in any case, it would neither be required nor even open to this Court at this stage, keeping in view the point at issue before the Court at this stage.

2.5 It is noted that on behalf of the appellant reliance is placed on the following decisions (as per Volume dated 05.01.2022) :-

(i) M/s.Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. vs. Madhu Woollen Industries (P) Limited reported in (1971) 3 SCC 632

(ii) IBA Health (India) Private Limited vs. Info Drive Systems Sdn. Bhd. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 553

(iii) B.Sunitha vs. State of Telangana and Another reported in (2018) 1 SCC 638

(iv) Pasl Wind Solutions Private Limited vs. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited reported in (2021) 7 SCC 1

(v) Jupudi Kesava Rao vs. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao and Others reported in (1971) 1 SCC 545

(vi) Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram and Other Charities and Others vs. Bhask