Madras High Court
Anjani Associates vs Dhandapani Spinning Mills ... on 7 August, 2023
O.S.A.No.75 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 07.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
O.S.No.75 of 2014
Anjani Associates .... Appellant
Vs
Dhandapani Spinning Mills Limited
Registered Office:
17F, Rajaji Road,
Salem-636 007 .... Respondent
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original
Side Rules read with Section 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the
order passed in Company Petition No.254 of 2012 dated 29.10.2013.
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Prabhuraj
For M/s A.K.Mylsamy & Associates
For respondent : Mr.Karthik Seshadri
For M/s Iyer & Thomas
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.,)
Aggrieved by the refusal of the Company Court to admit the Company
Petition, the petitioner before it is on appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.75 of 2014
2. The petitioner filed a petition in C.P.No.254 of 2012 under Section
433(1)(e), 433(1)(f), 434(1)(a) and Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956,
seeking winding up contending that the Company is unable to pay its debts.
3. The Company Court found that the Company is indebted to the
petitioner it, however, refused to exercise the discretion in admitting the
Company Petition on the ground that the matrimonial discard between the
petitioner in the Company Petition and the sister of the Managing Director of
the respondent Company is the reason for seeking winding up.
4. Mr.K.P.Prabhuraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that no doubt the Company Court has a discretion either to admit or to
reject the Company Petition, but the said discretion must be based on sound
judicial reason. Pointing out the fact that the divorce proceedings had ended
even in during August 2013 and there is no scope for further matrimonial
discard between the parties to the marriage, learned counsel would contend that
the Company Court has wrongly exercised its discretion in favour of a defaulter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.75 of 2014
5. Mr.Karthik Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Company is unable to support the order of the Company Court. Though he
would very seriously contend that the Company Court has got a discretion and
once the discretion has been exercised, we cannot interfere with such exercise
of discretion.
6. We are unable to sustain the order of the Company Court inasmuch as
the discretion has been exercised on a reason that is totally foreign to the
business of the Company. We also find force in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant when he contends that since the matrimonial dispute
has ended in divorce on 03.08.2013 itself, the said dispute should not have been
made a basis for rejecting the claim for winding up in September 2013.
7. We therefore set aside the order of the Company Court passed in
C.P.No.254 of 2012 and we admit the Company Petition. The Company Court
will proceed further with the Company Petition in accordance with law. All
defences including the question of enforceability of the debt as on today are left
open to the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.75 of 2014
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J
8. The Original Side Appeal is allowed with the above observation,. No
costs.
(R.S.M.J.,) (V.L.N.J.,)
07.08.2023
Index : Yes
Website : Yes
sr
To
The Assistant Registrar(O.S).,
High Court,
Madras
O.S.A.No.75 of 2014
07-08-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
