Skip to content


Kamadenu Enterprises Vs. Vivek Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCompany Petition No. 21 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1984]55CompCas68(Kar)
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 433
AppellantKamadenu Enterprises
RespondentVivek Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateH.N. Srinivas Anand, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Gayathrinath, Adv.
Excerpt:
- mines and minerals (regulation and development) act (67 of 1957) section 9-a & mineral concession rules, 1960, rules 31 & 27: [ram mohan reddy, j] power to tax - levy of lease rent and supervision charges on leased forest land release of forest land for mining purposes in favour of petitioners subject to payment of lease rent and supervision charges - impost of lease rent and supervision charges not established to be by way of tax under article 265 in exercise of executive functions under article 162 of constitution. it is illegal being without authority of law. the preamble in the orders of the state government, impugned, discloses reference to particulars regarding recommendations made by the state to central government for release of forest land for mining purposes in favour of..........of the court is to subserve the object of winding up the companies which have not paid their debts or which are unable to pay their debts. therefore, the first pre-requisite must be establish prima facie a debt against the respondent. but when a claim or debt is disputed, the proper forum for that is a civil court. 5. i, therefore, reject this petition reserving liability to the petitioner to approach civil court in regard to the disputed debt.
Judgment:

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.

1. This is a petition under s. 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is a registered firm under the Partnership Act. The petitioner-firm is a dealer in chemicals. The petitioner-firm has alleged that it supplied on various dates commencing from November 6, 1979, till December 27, 1979, chemicals to the respondent-company amounting to Rs. 35,180.60. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs. 17,700 in respect of various invoices has been paid and the balance has not been paid in spite of a statutory notice issued. Therefore, the present petition seeking a winding up of the respondent-company as it is unable to pay its debts.

2. The petition is resisted by the respondent-company on the ground that the claim of the petitioner-firm is not tenable to a large extent; that the respondent-company is liable to pay only the sum of Rs. 8,237.30; that the petitioner-firm was informed of this position as far back as January 31, 1981; that one of the directors of the respondent-company wrote to the petitioner-firm denying the liability to pay the sum of Rs. 17,700 but admitted the liability to the extent of Rs. 8,237.30. Even as far back as 1st September, 1980, the respondent-company had written to the petitioner-firm stating that the firm had been debited in the sum of Rs. 9,462.73 being the excess claim in respect of sum of the invoices. This is evidenced by the letter produced by the petitioner-firm itself as annex. -C to the petition.

3. In this view of the matter admittedly there is a genuine dispute as to the liability of the respondent-company to pay the aforementioned difference between what has been admitted and what has been claimed. It is not proper, in such a circumstance, to decide the same in this summary proceeding. Normally, the petitioner-firm should have approached a civil court the moment the amount claimed was denied by the respondent-company. Instead of doing that the petitioner has approached this court under s. 433 of the Act.

4. This court, having jurisdiction under s. 433 of the Act, is not a court which is essentially meant for settling money disputes between parties. This jurisdiction of the court is to subserve the object of winding up the companies which have not paid their debts or which are unable to pay their debts. Therefore, the first pre-requisite must be establish prima facie a debt against the respondent. But when a claim or debt is disputed, the proper forum for that is a civil court.

5. I, therefore, reject this petition reserving liability to the petitioner to approach civil court in regard to the disputed debt.


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