Skip to content


Mrs. C.R. Chandra Vs. Tirupati Cotton Mills Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCompany Petition No. 43 of 1969
Judge
Reported in[1971]41CompCas94(Mad)
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 433(E)
AppellantMrs. C.R. Chandra
RespondentTirupati Cotton Mills Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateC. Harikrishnan and ;Bhasker Shanker, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateM.V. Ganapati, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredAmalgamated Commercial Traders P. Ltd. v. Krishnaswami
Excerpt:
- .....that fact is borne out by the gate pass, exhibit d-2, which was issued in the name of sri chandra. venkatasubbiah, petitioner's brother, wrote the letter, exhibit d-3(a), on june 15, 1967, to the managing director of the respondent-company stating that the bales of blankets had been delivered to sri chandra against the advance of rs. 24,000 and that the same deliveryhad been effected under gate pass, exhibit d-2. the other documents of the company, namely, the voucher, exhibit d-4, and the invoice, exhibit d-5, all stated the name of sri c.r. chandra, in the covering letter, exhibit d-6(a), written by venkatasubbiah, the petitioner's brother, sent along with exhibit d-6 addressed to the respondent-company, it is stated that he thereby confirmed having received the amount.....
Judgment:

Palaniswamy, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act for winding up the respondent-company on the ground that it is unable to pay the petitioner's debts. The respondent-company raises the dispute about the truth of the debt itself. The petitioner claims to have advanced a sum of Rs. 24,000 on June 4, 1967, to the company at the time when the management of the company was in the hands of one Venkata-subbiah, who is the brother of the petitioner. The company admits the loan which is evidenced by the receipt, exhibit D-1. But the case of the company is that the records of the company show that the amount was advanced not by the petitioner but by one Sri Chandra, the petitioner being Mrs. Chandra. The further case of the company is that the amount due to the said Sri Chandra has been discharged by delivery of bales of blankets. That fact is borne out by the gate pass, exhibit D-2, which was issued in the name of Sri Chandra. Venkatasubbiah, petitioner's brother, wrote the letter, exhibit D-3(a), on June 15, 1967, to the managing director of the respondent-company stating that the bales of blankets had been delivered to Sri Chandra against the advance of Rs. 24,000 and that the same deliveryhad been effected under gate pass, exhibit D-2. The other documents of the company, namely, the voucher, exhibit D-4, and the invoice, exhibit D-5, all stated the name of Sri C.R. Chandra, In the covering letter, exhibit D-6(a), written by Venkatasubbiah, the petitioner's brother, sent along with exhibit D-6 addressed to the respondent-company, it is stated that he thereby confirmed having received the amount specified therein towards the balance due from the mills to Sri C.R. Chandra.

2. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties as to whether the amount was due to Sri C.R. Chandra or Smt. Chandra. Venkatasubbiahbegan to say that after he left the services of the respondent-company the amount was due to Smt. Chandra. The respondent-company repudiated this claim and notices passed between the parties. Thus, it is seen that no document of the company of which Venkatasubbiah was responsible shows that the amount was due to the present petitioner. On the other hand, all the documents, to which he was a party, show that the creditor was Sri C.R. Chandra. It is unnecessary to go into the question whether the bales delivered to a carrier by name M.S.M. Lorry Service was taken back by the respondent-company as stated by the petitioner or had been delivered over to Sri C.R. Chandra in full settlement of the claim of Sri C.R. Chandra as contended by the respondent-company. Suffice it to note that the respondent-company has raised a dispute which is undoubtedly bona fide as would be seen from the documents of the company. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Amalgamated Commercial Traders P. Ltd. v. Krishnaswami , the dispute being bona fide as to the truth of the debt, this is not the forum for adjudication upon the truth of the debt, and the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. (Vide also Palmer's Company Precedents, 1960 edition, volume 2, page 27). The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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