CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Puneet Brar and Another vs Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd. and Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 29 July 2011 · Citation: (2011) 110 SCL 156

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Karol, J · Deepak Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Companies Act, 1956 — Section 434
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal No. 5 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 367 words

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.4.2011 passed in Company Petition No. 3 of 2011 whereby the Company Petition filed by the Petitioners herein has been dismissed by the learned Company Judge in limine without even issuing notice to the Company.

2.

The allegation of the Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners) is that they had rented out House No. 609, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh to the Company at a rent of Rs. 59,000/- per month. It was alleged that the Company after June, 2010 has not paid any amount and even prior to that there is some shortfall in the payments. Notice was issued by the Petitioners calling upon the Company to pay the balance amount u/s 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 but the Company did not respond to this notice. It is argued that since the Company did not respond to the notice there is a presumption that the Company is unable to pay its debts.

3.

The learned Company Judge came to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties was purely a rent dispute and the Petitioners had an effective and efficacious remedy of filing proceedings for eviction of the tenant under the Rent Control Act or for recovery of the amount by filing a suit at Chandigarh and this was not a fit case where notices should be issued to the Company.

4.

We have perused the file of the Company Petition and find that the Petitioners have not even cared to annex the balance sheets of the Company. How can this Court presume that the Company is unable to pay off its debt when the Petitioners have not filed the balance sheets or any other document on record to show that the Company is unable to pay its debt? Merely because the Company has not replied to the notice, is no reason to either wind up the Company or to issue notice. Even issuance of notice for winding up of the Company can cause havoc to the Company. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Company 3 Judge was justified in dismissing the petition in limine. The appeal is also dismissed in limine.