Skip to content


In the Matter of Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCompany Petition No. 159 of 1967
Judge
Reported in[1969]39ITR475(Bom)
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections. 433 and 434(1)
AppellantIn the Matter of Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateA.H. Mehta, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP.P. Khambatta, Adv.
Excerpt:
- maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers..........asked the court to do. all the same, i am prepared to make an order which, in my opinion, will, whilst protecting the right of the petitioner and other creditors, will whilst protecting the rights of the petitioner and other creditors, will whilst protecting the rights of the petitioner and other creditors, give the necessary time to the company to work out and place before the court any scheme which it might be in a position to evolve in the near future. i accordingly order that the petition be admitted, but that it be not admitted, but that it be not advertised for a period of twelve weeks from to-day. it will there-after be advertised in the times of india and in the loksatta and in the maharashtra government gazette, unless further orders of the court are obtained by the company.....
Judgment:

Vimadalal, J.

1. This is a petition for winding up the Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd., inter alia, on the ground of non-compliance with the statutory notice that has been given by the petitioner under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. Mr. Khambatta has sought to contend that the company is not commercially insolvent and that its financial position is not such as to be unable to pay its debts. The petitioner's debt is an undisputed debt and, as stated in Palmer's Company Law 20th edition, page 697, the court will not listen to such a defence where the debt is undisputed. In the judgment delivered by me in In re Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1969] 39 Com. Cas. 463 in Company Petition No. 80 of 1968 on 19th September, 1968. I have taken the view that once there is non-compliance with a statutory notice, and the court comes to the conclusion that there is no bona fide dispute in regard to the petitioner's debt, the creditor is entitled to a winding up order ex debito justitiae. This contention of Mr. Khambatta must, therefore, be rejected.

2. Mr. Khambatta has next contended, though it is not the case made out in the affidavit in reply filed on this petition, that he should be given time to work out a compromise or arrangement under which the mills can be worked. There is however, nothing concrete placed before the court by way of a scheme which would justify me in refusing to admit the petition on this ground and postponing the dame, as Mr. Khambatta has asked the court to do. All the same, I am prepared to make an order which, in my opinion, will, whilst protecting the right of the petitioner and other creditors, will whilst protecting the rights of the petitioner and other creditors, will whilst protecting the rights of the petitioner and other creditors, give the necessary time to the company to work out and place before the court any scheme which it might be in a position to evolve in the near future. I accordingly order that the petition be admitted, but that it be not admitted, but that it be not advertised for a period of twelve weeks from to-day. It will there-after be advertised in the Times of India and in the Loksatta and in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, unless further orders of the court are obtained by the company in the meantime.

3. I may state that I have not permitted the Kamgar Margadarshak Samitee, which is a registered union of workers, to appear at the hearing of this petition as, in my opinion, it is only individual creditors who can appear, and not a labour union even though it may be registered or may, by reason of such registration, have rights under the industrial law to appear before industrial tribunals. Cost of the petition will be cost in the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //