Full Text
Translation output
% 05.08.2011 I
Present: Mr. Vijay K. Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
+ Co. Appi. 1549/2011 in Co. Pet. 333/2011
* (M/s. Guiding Force Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd.)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
+ Co. Pet. 333/2011 & Co. Appis. 1547-1548/2011
* (M/s. Guiding Force Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd.)
Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Mr. Vijay K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent has admitted its liability by e-mail dated 291h March, 2011.
He further points out that the obligation to remove the encumbrances was on the third party appointed with the consent of respondent and
10 not on the petitioner.
However, on a perusal of the email, this Court notices that the respondent has agreed to the payment but subject to many stipulations to be performed by the petitioner. The intent of writing this email was not to admit the debt but to make the petitioner aware of serious lapses on its, part under the Collaboration Agreement and
2011:DHC:7129
Supplementary Collaboration Agreement dated
15th May, 2008.
Further, in reply to the statutory winding up notice, I find that respondent has alleged breach of various obligations on part of the petitioner. Not only has it been stated that petitioner has failed to remove encumbrances, but it has also been stated that petitioner has failed to obtain DTCP licence and has refused to allow the respondent to mortgage the land which in turn has caused huge monetary loss to the respondent. It has also been alleged in the reply to statutory notice that petitioner had tried to gain forcible possession of the land. it is pertinent to mention that petitioner's suit for injunction is already pending before the Court of Ms. Bhawna Jam, Additional
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridabad. In the said suit, respondent has filed a counter claim and the trial Court after hearing both the parties, has stayed the petitioner from interfering with the suit property till disposal of the proceedings.
Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the reading the e-mail dated 29th March, 2011 holistically, this Court is of the view that serious disputed question of facts are involved in the present case and there is no admission of debt by the respondent.
It is a well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of thi
Court in winding up matters is summary in nature and it shall not adjudicate/entertain any matter involving disputed questions of fact.
Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, present petition and applications are not maintainable and accordingly, same ae dismissed.
However, petitioner is given liberty to file appropriate recovery proceedings.
Needless to say, the civil Court would decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made by this
Court.
IL-1
MANMOffiN,J
AUGUST 05, 2011 js
P
J
Present: Mr. Vijay K. Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
+ Co. Appi. 1549/2011 in Co. Pet. 333/2011
* (M/s. Guiding Force Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd.)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
+ Co. Pet. 333/2011 & Co. Appis. 1547-1548/2011
* (M/s. Guiding Force Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd.)
Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Mr. Vijay K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent has admitted its liability by e-mail dated 291h March, 2011.
He further points out that the obligation to remove the encumbrances was on the third party appointed with the consent of respondent and
10 not on the petitioner.
However, on a perusal of the email, this Court notices that the respondent has agreed to the payment but subject to many stipulations to be performed by the petitioner. The intent of writing this email was not to admit the debt but to make the petitioner aware of serious lapses on its, part under the Collaboration Agreement and
2011:DHC:7129
Supplementary Collaboration Agreement dated
15th May, 2008.
Further, in reply to the statutory winding up notice, I find that respondent has alleged breach of various obligations on part of the petitioner. Not only has it been stated that petitioner has failed to remove encumbrances, but it has also been stated that petitioner has failed to obtain DTCP licence and has refused to allow the respondent to mortgage the land which in turn has caused huge monetary loss to the respondent. It has also been alleged in the reply to statutory notice that petitioner had tried to gain forcible possession of the land. it is pertinent to mention that petitioner's suit for injunction is already pending before the Court of Ms. Bhawna Jam, Additional
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridabad. In the said suit, respondent has filed a counter claim and the trial Court after hearing both the parties, has stayed the petitioner from interfering with the suit property till disposal of the proceedings.
Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the reading the e-mail dated 29th March, 2011 holistically, this Court is of the view that serious disputed question of facts are involved in the present case and there is no admission of debt by the respondent.
It is a well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of thi
Court in winding up matters is summary in nature and it shall not adjudicate/entertain any matter involving disputed questions of fact.
Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, present petition and applications are not maintainable and accordingly, same ae dismissed.
However, petitioner is given liberty to file appropriate recovery proceedings.
Needless to say, the civil Court would decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made by this
Court.
IL-1
MANMOffiN,J
AUGUST 05, 2011 js
P
J
JUDGMENT