High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
D. P. S. CHAUHAN
PAWAN KUMAR KHULLAR - Appellant
Versus
KAUSHAL LEATHER BOARD LIMITED - Respondents
COMPANY PETITION 1 Of 1993
Decided On : 03/10/1995
Winding Up - Company unable to pay debts - The court dismissed the petition for winding up the company as the petitioner's claim for unpaid salary did not fall under the provision of Section 433 sub-section (e) of the Companies Act, 1956, which allows winding up if the company is unable to pay its debts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the company, filed a petition for winding up the company due to non-payment of salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition to be incompetent and dismissed it, stating that the claim for unpaid salary did not align with the provision for winding up the company due to inability to pay debts.
Issues: The issue was whether the non-payment of salary by the company warranted the winding up of the company under Section 433 sub-section (e) of the Companies Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the difference between salary and debt, emphasizing that the provision for winding up due to inability to pay debts did not encompass claims for unpaid salary.
Final Decision: The petition for winding up the company was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court also clarified that the dismissal of the petition would not prejudice the petitioner's right to pursue the recovery of the unpaid salary through the appropriate forum.
( 1 ) THE petition contains a prayer for winding up of the Company known as 'kaushal Leather Board Limited', which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel relied on provisions of Section 433 sub-section (c) in support of her submissions for order of the winding up of the Company. Sub-section (e) of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 is as extracted below:"433. A company may be wound up by the Court :- (e) if the company is unable to pay its debts;"
( 3 ) THE petition is at the behest of Pawan Kumar Khullar, who was an employee of the company and his salary has not been paid by the company and, therefore, for not payment of the salary the petitioner has approached this Court and prayed that company itself be wound up. The provision as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner says that the company may be wound up by the Court if the company is unable to pay the debts.
( 4 ) THERE is difference between debt and salary. The salary is the remuneration paid to a person or employee in lieu of services rendered by him/her whereas debt in not remuneration. Debt is something which is borrowed by a person on settled terms and conditions and settled rate of interest and can be re-settled between the parties.
( 5 ) IN view of above, I find that the petition is incompetent and is accordingly dismissed.
( 6 ) SINCE after service of notice nobody has turned up from the side of the company, no order as to costs.
( 7 ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that this order will not prejudice the right of the petitioner in regard to the recovery of the salary before the appropriate forum as may be available to him and as he may be advised. Petition dismissed.
.
AI
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.