Bombay High Court Allows Winding Up Petition Filed by Court Receiver for Recovery of Royalty Arrears Against Vatsa Interiors P.Ltd. Under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court held that the company is unable to pay its debts but granted a final opportunity to pay the principal amount in installments to avoid winding up.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 107
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai filed a company petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of Vatsa Interiors P.Ltd. (formerly Benzer Interiors P.Ltd.) for recovery of royalty charges amounting to Rs.97,54,768/-. The respondent company was appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver in Suit No.258 of 1996 on condition of paying royalty at Rs.3,00,000/- per month for use of premises at Malabar Hill, Mumbai. The company fell into arrears from 1997. A statutory notice dated 16.04.2002 was issued but the amount remained unpaid. The company admitted the debt but sought time to pay. The court noted that the company had not paid the arrears despite the petition being filed in 2004. The court held that the company is unable to pay its debts and is liable to be wound up. However, considering the company's request, the court granted a final opportunity to pay the principal amount in installments: Rs.25,00,000/- by 31.03.2005, Rs.25,00,000/- by 30.04.2005, and the balance by 31.05.2005. If the company fails to pay, the petition shall be advertised and proceed for winding up. The court also directed that if the company pays the entire amount, the petition shall stand dismissed.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Winding Up - Inability to Pay Debts - Sections 433(e), 434 Companies Act, 1956 - The Court Receiver, as creditor, filed a winding up petition against the respondent company for non-payment of royalty arrears of Rs.97,54,768/- despite statutory notice under Sections 433 and 434. The company admitted the debt but sought time to pay. The court held that the company is unable to pay its debts and is liable to be wound up, but granted a final opportunity to pay the principal amount in installments to avoid winding up. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent company is liable to be wound up under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 for inability to pay its debts, being arrears of royalty charges amounting to Rs.97,54,768/-.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition but granted a final opportunity to the respondent company to pay the principal amount of Rs.97,54,768/- in three installments: Rs.25,00,000/- by 31.03.2005, Rs.25,00,000/- by 30.04.2005, and the balance by 31.05.2005. If the company fails to pay any installment, the petition shall be advertised and proceed for winding up. If the entire amount is paid, the petition shall stand dismissed.

Law Points

  • Winding up under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act
  • 1956
  • Debt recovery
  • Statutory notice
  • Admission of debt
  • Inability to pay debts
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 21

Company Petition No.214 of 2004

2005-03-11

S.U. Kamdar

H.J. Thakkar i/b Soloman & Co. for petitioner, V.R. Dhond with Ms. Deepa Mani i/b S.K. Shrivastava & Co. for company, R.L. Tola i/b L.C. Tola & Co. for intervenor

Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai

Vatsa Interiors P.Ltd. (formerly Benzer Interiors P.Ltd.)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Company petition for winding up under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for recovery of royalty arrears.

Remedy Sought

Winding up of the respondent company for non-payment of royalty charges.

Filing Reason

Non-payment of royalty arrears of Rs.97,54,768/- despite statutory notice.

Previous Decisions

The respondent company was appointed as agent of the Court Receiver in Suit No.258 of 1996 on condition of paying royalty at Rs.3,00,000/- per month.

Issues

Whether the respondent company is unable to pay its debts under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. Whether the company should be wound up for non-payment of royalty arrears.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner (Court Receiver): The respondent company is in arrears of royalty charges from 1997, total arrears Rs.97,54,768/-. Statutory notice under Sections 433 and 434 was issued on 16.04.2002 but not complied with. Respondent company: Admitted the debt but sought time to pay, stating that the company is a running concern and winding up would be detrimental.

Ratio Decidendi

A company which admits its debt but fails to pay despite statutory notice is deemed unable to pay its debts under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, and is liable to be wound up. However, the court may grant a final opportunity to pay the debt in installments to avoid winding up if the company is a running concern.

Judgment Excerpts

It is an admitted position that after the filing of the present company petition the company has not paid the arrears amount. The company is unable to pay its debts and is liable to be wound up. I grant one more opportunity to the respondent company to pay the principal amount of Rs.97,54,768/- in three installments.

Procedural History

The Court Receiver filed a winding up petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 on 16.04.2002 after issuing a statutory notice. The petition was heard on 11.03.2005 and the court passed the order granting installments.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 1956: 433, 434
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Against Civil Suit for Medical Negligence Despite Prior Consumer Forum Dismissal. Principle of Res Judicata Not Applicable to Consumer Forum Decisions Under Section 9 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Husband's Revision Against Maintenance Award to Wife and Minor Son Under Section 125 CrPC. Husband Failed to Prove Wife's Desertion Without Sufficient Cause; Wife's Allegations of Cruelty and Dowry Demand Accepted.