Skip to content


Southern Industrial Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amar Formulators and Electronics P. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in[1984]56CompCas77(Kar); 1983(1)KarLJ231
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 433
AppellantSouthern Industrial Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentAmar Formulators and Electronics P. Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateR.D. Kolekar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB.M. Krishna Bhat, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....which the 1st respondent /claimant travelled and sustained injuries. it is for the insured owner of the vehicle to make good the compensation and no liability could be fastened on the appellant / insurer. - with the last payment mentioned it is submitted that the entire claim against the company had been satisfied except the interest claimed at 20% though interest has been worked out at 12% and paid. the payment made by the respondent-company is clearly indicative that the respondent-company is commercially solvent......be unjust. 4. for the reasons stated above, this petition is rejected without being admitted but liberty is reserved to the petitioner company to establish its claim for the difference of the agreed rate of interest in a civil court and recover the same if it succeeds. no costs.
Judgment:

Chandrakantahar Urs, J.

1. This petitioner under s. 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, made by the Southern Industries Polymers (P). Ltd., having its registered office at Madras.

2. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents Amar Formulators & Electronics (Pvt.) Limited. Banglore incorporated and registered under The Companies Act, having its registered office at Banaglore, had certain transactions with the petitioner-company and in respect ot those transaction the respondent-company is due and payable to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 2,69,308.38, as on March 31, 1981. However, on the date of the petitioner the claim has been raised to Rs. 2,96,736.62 on September 10, 1981. The petitioner presented the petition on October 15, 1981. Notice was ordered to other respondent and the respondents filed its objections through counsel. In the statement of objections it is stated that at a meeting held on November 10, 1981, after the presentation of the above petition in this court a the head office of the petitioner's company at Madras, it agreed that a sum of Rs. 3,16,072.37 should be paid by the respondent to the petitioner-company by installments as mentioned in a joint memo of agreement, entered into between the parties. In terms of the joint memo, the petitioner had also agreed to withdraw the petition. In other words, the claim of the petitioner is admitted by the respondent company to other extent indicated in para 7 of the objections statement. However, apparently, the memorandum of agreements was not acted upon strictly in terms thereof. It was only on April 12, 1982, that the respondent company paid Rs. 40,000 in this court. Thereafter, on June, 2, 1982, it has paid Rs. 15,390.64, and on june 1982, a sum, of Rs. 17,064.75 has been paid by cheque. With the last payment mentioned it is submitted that the entire claim against the company had been satisfied except the interest claimed at 20% though interest has been worked out at 12% and paid.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the submissions made on behalf of the respondent-company. but all outstanding claim except the amount arising out of the difference in the rate of interest calculated is outstanding. In my view, the scope of an inquiry under s. 433 cannot be extended to an enforcement of the memorandum of an agreement entered into during the pendency of the proceedings. The payment made by the respondent-company is clearly indicative that the respondent-company is commercially solvent. Therefore, an exercise of the jurisdiction under s. 433 of the ACt, admitting the petition merely because the rate of interest agreed to between the parties in regard to the transaction is disputed, would be unjust.

4. For the reasons stated above, this petition is rejected without being admitted but liberty is reserved to the petitioner company to establish its claim for the difference of the agreed rate of interest in a civil court and recover the same if it succeeds. No costs.


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