Winding up petition dismissed because disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of interest (compound vs simple) and debt existence required judicial evidence which the petitioner failed to offer.
Petition for winding up is dismissed on the grounds of disputed facts.
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
Prs
28 cp 978-15-o
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.978 OF 2015
| Bizworld International Investment | ||
|---|---|---|
| Securities Company Pvt. Ltd. | ... | Petitioner |
| V/s. | ||
| Mathuresh Infrapro Pvt. Ltd. | ... | Respondent |
Mr.Rahul Narichania, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pramesh Kamat i/by Mr. M.K.Tanna for the Petitioner.
Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar i/by M/s Kishore Thakordas and Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2017.
P.C. :
unable to pay its debt, is commercially insolvent and requires to be wound up.
Prs 2 28 cp 978-15-o
amount originally lent was Rs.6,05,00,000/-. It is also alleged that this amount of Rs.6,05,00,000/- was to be repaid with interest at 9% p.a.. According to Petitioner, interest payable was on compoundable basis, whereas it is Respondent's case that simple interest was payable at 9% p.a.. Admittedly, substantial amounts have been paid and certainly amount far in excess of the principal amount of Rs.6,05,00,000/- and huge amount of interest has been paid. According to Mr. Narichania, it was to be paid on the basis of interest on interest and according to Mr. Khandeparkar it is paid at simple rate of interest at 9%p.a.. According to Petitioner, since interest was to be added and converted into principal and interest on interest was payable, Respondent still owe a sum in excess of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to Petitioner.
Prs 3
28 cp 978-15-o
nothing was due and payable.
Prs 4 28 cp 978-15-o
rate of interest 9% p.a. was payable, Respondent could have denied, but when the statutory notice does not indicate that compound rate of interest was agreed to be paid, the question of Respondent denying that compound rate of interest was payable does not arise.
1(2010)10 SCC 553
Prs 5 28 cp 978-15-o
demand, by proving, at the statutory demand stage that it is solvent.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, J.)
…...
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition for winding up under the Companies Act can be admitted where the existence of debt is disputed regarding interest calculation (compound vs simple).
Whether the Petitioner須 lead evidence to prove the nature of interest liability in absence of a written agreement.
Whether the discretion under Section 127 of the Companies Act, 1956 should be exercised to admit the petition when facts are in dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
IBA Health (India)(P)Ltd. Vs. Info-Drive Systems Sdn. Bhd.Referred¶24
(2010)10 SCC 553 · Who else cites this
Bizworld International Investment Securities Company Pvt. Ltd.
Mathuresh Infrapro Pvt. Ltd.
K.R.SHRIRAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
