Dismissed

Ms. Nisha Harale v. Craftworld Events Private Limited - U74990MH2009PTC92502

Bombay HC7 Aug 2013CP/355/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought winding up of a private limited company alleging non-payment of fees. The court rejected the petition, noting the company was commercially solvent and the dispute regarding performance and payment required a civil trial, not winding up. No case was made out for winding up.

What did the court decide?

Petition for winding up of the respondent company is rejected/dismissed.

Ms. Nisha Harale Vs Craftworld Events Private Limited… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

CP355-12.doc

Sequeira

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO. 355 OF 2012. Ms Nisha Harale. .. Petitioner Vs

¶6

Craftworld Events Private Limited. .. Respondent

¶7

Mr.Prashant More i/b S.R.Mishra, for petitioner. Mr.Rakesh Singh, for respondent.

¶8

CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Wednesday 7 August 2013

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

By this petition the petitioner seeks winding up of the respondent Craftworld Events Private Limited.

¶11

The petitioner is in the entertainment business and working as a Choreographer. The petitioner also is carrying on business in the name and style of 'Niche Entertainment Pvt.Ltd.' The respondent Company ha authorised share capital of Rs.5,00,000/- and paid up capital of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent Company is in the business of Event Management, Promotion and management service.

¶12

As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was engaged on or about November 2011 as 'Event Manager' for 'India Kids Fashion Week' which was held in Mumbai. According to the petitioner, the petitioner worked as a choreographer and carried out other allied activities and conducted the show. As per the terms of the appointment letter, the petitioner was to be paid 50 % of the amount i.e. Rs.2,10,000/- and remaining amount was to be after the event. It is the case of the petitioner

¶13

¶14

CP355-12.doc

¶15

that the petitioner trained around 300 children and coordinated with 12 designers and carried out the work as was expected. According to the petitioner the respondent made only due part payment of Rs.2,10,000/less TDS of Rs.21,000/- out of Rs.4,20,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.2,10,000/- is due and payable. The petitioner submitted the bills of Rs.4,20,000/-. The cheque was issued towards Rs.1,89,000/- which when deposited was returned with remark 'stop payment'. Thereafter the petitioner gave a statutory notice and filed the present petition.

¶16

The respondent has filed reply affidavit in which it is stated that as per the agreement, the petitioner had to carry out the work of choreographer and the petitioner had to perform certain number of shows. It is stated that the petitioner did not carry out all the shows that were assigned, her work was not satisfactory and she promoted her own Company at the event. It is stated that in view of this position the respondent withheld payment and did not release the amount which was given by way of cheque. It is placed on record that the total turnover of the Company is around Rs.6.11 crores which was increased to Rs.9.96 with fixed assets of the Company till date and the respondent Company is commercially solvent.

¶17

Before the matter was heard on merits, several attempts were made to amicably resolve the dispute but inspite of best efforts of the counsel, they were not fruitful.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. As per the agreement petitioner was to be given 50% advance and

¶19

¶20

CP355-12.doc

¶21

remaining amount was to be paid after the event. The learned counsel for the respondent is right in contending that this arrangement shows that the remaining amount was to be paid after the event so that the respondent will be able to monitor the performance of the petitioner. The respondent has placed on record that the performance of the petitioner was not good and requisite number of shows were not carried out. The learned counsel for the petitioner has refuted these allegations. Be that as it may, whether the performance of the petitioner as a choreographer was proper or not will not only require evidence, but it is a matter of subjective satisfaction. This Court while entertaining the petition for winding up cannot decide whether performance of the petitioner was upto the mark or not. This is a matter more of civil trial, if at all.

¶22

It is placed on record that the respondent Company is commercially solvent. It's annual turnover is around Rs.9.96 crores. The defence raised by the respondent Company that it is because of the performance of the petitioner that balance payment was withheld and it is because the petitioner only carried out 8 out of 12 shows and used her logo to promote her own company she was not entitled to balance payment cannot be said to be a defence without substance, so as to proceed to wind up the respondent Company. The debt also cannot be called as an undisputed one.

¶23

In view thereof, no case is made out for admission of the petition, it is accordingly rejected.

¶24

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

Ms. Nisha Harale v. Craftworld Events Private Limited - U74990MH2009PTC92502

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Nisha Harale v. Craftworld Events Private Limited - U74990MH2009PTC92502

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabodh K. Mehta Vs Charuben K. Mehta

Prabodh K. Mehta Vs Charuben K. Mehta

Cahru Kishor Mehta Vs Prabodh Kirtila Mehta

Rajkumar M. Bajaj Propritor of M/S.Bliss Entrprise Vs Sachinam Travels Pvt. Ltd. - U63040MH1989PTC052333

Anjan Amal Krishna Brahma Vs I-Maritime Consultancy PVT.LTD.-U74130MH2000PTC123950

Anjan Amal Krishna Brahma Vs I-Maritime Consultancy PVT.LTD.-U74130MH2000PTC123950