The High Court of Gujarat rejected a winding up petition filed by a former employee against a consultancy firm. The court held that the debt was bona fide and disputed, and the termination of employment lacked meritorious defense, rendering the petition devoid of merit.
Winding up petition rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CP120-13.doc
Sequeira
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 120 OF 2013
Mr.Anjan Amal Krishna Brahma .. Petitioner Vs. i-maritime Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.Uday P.Warunjikar, for petitioner. Mr.V.V.Khemkar, for respondent.
CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Wednesday 7 August 2013
P.C.:
By this petition the petitioner seeks winding up of respondent i- maritime Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.
2
CP120-13.doc
dated 27 July 2012 stated that settlement of dues will be decided by Board of Directors within a period of 16 days, however the dues have not been settled. According to the petitioner as per the terms of appointment, petitioner was to get an amount of Rs.3 lac per month as payment. The petitioner was getting Rs.36,00,000/- per year and salary payable for notice period was Rs.9,00,000/- plus the bonus and leave encashment facilities. Since the amounts were not paid the petitioner issued a statutory notice on 1 October 2012. Thereafter the present petition is filed.
3
CP120-13.doc
which has not been done. The learned counsel submitted that there is absolutely no material placed on record to show how the case of the petitioner falls under clause 8(d) of the terms and conditions of the appointment order. The learned counsel submitted that as per clause 8(d) if the Company was to terminate the services, it had to pay compensation in the form of salary in lieu of notice and the notice period was of three months. The learned counsel submitted even that amount is not been paid. The learned counsel further submitted that in the affidavit in reply the respondent has admitted that financial position of the respondent Company is not sound and in view thereof no further evidence is required regarding commercial solvency.
4
CP120-13.doc
In view thereof, there is no merit in this petition, and it is accordingly rejected.
N.M.JAMDAR, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the winding up petition filed by the former employee can be sustained given the disputed nature of the debt and termination grounds.
Whether the petitioner has established sufficient material to show that the respondent's termination was bona fide or without meritorious defense.
Mr. Anjan Amal Krishna Brahma
i-maritime Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.
N.M.JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
