AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Singhvi, Actg. C.J.—This appeal u/s 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") is directed against order dated December 14, 2000, passed by the learned company judge in Company Petition No. 272 of 2000.
A perusal of the petition filed by the appellant u/s 433/434/439 of the Act shows that he had given a demand draft of 10,000 pounds (sterling) to the respondent-company in January, 1989. After one year, the respondent issued 26,488 shares of Rs. 10 each with the prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant protested against this act of the company by addressing communication dated April 15, 1990, to its managing director in which he mentioned that the amount of 10,000 pounds (sterling) had been given by way of loan. However, for the next eight years, he did not take any step for recovery of the so-called loan and filed a petition for winding up of the respondent-company in the year 2000 only.
On being noticed by the court, the respondent-company filed reply and controverted the averments contained in the company petition. It claimed that the amount of 10,000 pounds (sterling) had been given by the petitioner-appellant for the purpose of investment and accordingly, shares were issued in his favour. The learned company judge dismissed the petition by recording the following observations :
"In the facts and circumstances narrated above, there is no material on record, to enable this court to arrive at the conclusion that the amount extended by the petitioner to the respondent-company was indeed a loan repayable after ten years with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum with half yearly rests. The communications addressed by the respondent-company to the petitioner also do not lead to the aforesaid conclusion. It is, therefore, not possible for this court to arrive at the conclusion that the respondent owes any debt to the petitioner. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no merit in the claim of the petitioner for winding up of the respondent-company on account of failure to discharge its financial liability towards the petitioner."
We have heard Sri Arun Bansal at considerable length.
In our opinion, the finding recorded by the learned company judge that the appellant had failed to prove the factum of advancement of loan of 10,000 pounds (sterling) does not suffer from any legal infirmity and, therefore, the consequential conclusion drawn by him that the appellant had failed to make out a case for winding up of the respondent does not call for interference.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. However, we give liberty to the appellant to pursue other remedies including by way of civil suit for recovery of the amount given to the respondent.