Full Text
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 1010 OF 2010
Reminiscent India Television Ltd ...Appellant
M/s. Status Video ...Respondent
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 715 OF 2002
Reminiscent India Television Ltd ...Appellant
Status Video ...Respondent
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 715 OF 2002
Sreminiscent India Television Ltd ...Appellant
Status Video ...Respondent
DATED : 11 December 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Patrawala for the Appellant.
2. The Appeal No.1010 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 27 July 2010 made by the, learned Company Judge making the Company Petition No.715 of 2002 absolute in terms of prayer SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO clauses (a) and (b).
3. This Appeal was admitted on 30 September 2010, and the impugned order was stayed during the pendency of this Appeal. The Appeals were fixed for hearing in the first week of March 2011. However, they are being taken up for the final hearing today.
4. Appeal No.1011 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 27 July 2010 disposing of the Company Application No.593 of 2007 in Company Petition No.715 of 2002, by which the Appellant herein had invited the Court to adopt perjury proceedings against the Respondents for having falsely declared herself to be the sole proprietress of M/s Status Video. This Application was dismissed. Hence, Appeal No.1011 of 2010.
5. The Appeal No.1012 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 27 July 2010 disposing of Company Petition No.715 of 2002 by making it absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
6. Ms Patrawala, learned counsel for the Appellant, submitted that there was overwhelming evidence on record to establish that Mrs Sushila Bhatia was not at all the sole proprietor of M/s. Status Video. The actual proprietor was her son, Mr. Satyen Bhatia. Therefore, the Petition seeking to wind up the Appellant was not at all maintainable at the behest of Mrs Sushila Bhatia.
7. Ms Patrawala elaborated on the sole argument advanced by her, pointing out that the criminal complaints were filed by Mr Satyen Bhatia, who claimed to be the sole proprietor of M/S. Status Video. Even otherwise, there was evidence that it was Mr Satyen Bhatia who was the sole proprietor and not Mrs Sushila Bhatia. Ms Patrawala submitted that Mrs Sushila Bhatia lacked locus standi to institute the Company Petition, and, on this ground alone, the impugned orders warrant interference.
8. We have considered the above contention, but we cannot accept it for the reasons indicated hereafter.
9. The defence, now pressed by the Appellant Company, is far from bona fide. The learned Company Judge adequately considered this defence and rejected it on cogent grounds that warrant no interference.
10. In this case, the Appellant agreed to the claim raised by M/s. Status Video through the Proprietress, Mrs Sushila Bhatia. The Appellant company next agreed to pay the claimed amount in nine instalments, out of which the first instalment was duly paid. After committing default, the Appellant has raised this plea belatedly, only to renege from the solemn agreement reached and recorded in the Court proceedings.
11. The record unmistakably shows that the Appellant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,33,000/-, which was, incidentally, only the principal amount claimed, in nine monthly instalments. The first of such instalments was paid. However, the cheque for the second instalment was dishonoured. Thereafter, the Respondent made no payments and has now raised a frivolous defence that lacks bona fides.
12. As regards the contention now raised, the learned Company Judge has made the following observations in Paragraphs 7 to 11, which are transcribed below for the convenience of reference:- “7. The third defence is that the petition is filed by the wrong person in as much as Mrs.Sushila Bhatia is shown to be the sole proprietor of the petitioner firm whereas it is her son Mr.Satyen Bhatia who is the proprietor of the said firm. Had the matter ended, this defence would have entailed a dismissal of the petition.
8. The matter however, does not rest there. It is important to note an order dated 6.2.03 passed in this Company Petition. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 thereof read as under:- “Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the respondent is willing to pay to the petitioner the amount of principal i.e. Rs.15,33,000/ by nine equal monthly installments. He further states that the first installment shall be paid on or before 10th March 2003 and the installments of succeeding month shall be paid on or before 10th of each calender month. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no objection to the disposal of the petition in the following terms in case the payment is made.
2. In case the respondent produces before the Company respondent has paid to the petitioner the amount as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent within one week of the expiry of the period allowed for making payment by installment, this company petition shall stand disposed of.
3. In case no such proof is produced by the respondent or in case the petitioner files an affidavit before the company has committed any default in making payment of installment as per the above statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, this company petition shall stand admitted without any further reference to this Court. In that event, it shall be made returnable on the date to be nominated by the Company Registrar.”
9. The respondent admittedly paid the first installment. The cheque for the second installment was dishonoured. The remaining installments were not paid. By an order dated 15.09.03, it was recorded that there was a default in paying the installments and the petition was made returnable on 8.12.03. The Company was represented by an advocate even when this order was passed.
10. It would have been open to the respondent to challenge the maintainability of petition on this ground, had the petition been admitted without the respondent having agreed to pay the amounts to the petitione. What is important is that the respondent agreed to pay the amount of Rs.15,33,000/- which was only the principal amount in 9 monthly installment irrespective of the defences that were available to it. Based on this, the respondent induced the petitioner to accept a lower amount and also induced the court to pass an order dated 6.2.03. The agreement to pay as recorded in the order dated 6.2.03 was unconditional. Having done so, it is not open for the respondent now to go back on its word.
11. It would also be unfair to the petitioners to permit this defence regarding the maintainability of the petition at this stage after the respondent expressly agreed to pay the amounts recorded in the order dated 06.02.2003. The law does not prohibit such an agreement viz. payment by the debtor to another at the instance of the creditor. At the highest, the respondents can insist on a discharge from the creditor viz. the said Satyen. Had the respondents not agreed to pay the amounts at the relevant time, the petitioner would have been able to take remedial measures. By having failed to raise the contention and in any event by having agreed expressly, irrespective of anything, to pay the said amount to the petitioner, the respondent induced the petitioner firm and the said Satyen to alter their stand to their detriment irretrievably.”
13. We agree with the reasoning of the learned Company Judge that this defence was not only frivolous but was raised belatedly and unfairly. Assuming that there are some differences between the petitioning creditor and her son, there is no question of the Appellant trying to take advantage of such differences or urging that the petitioning creditor had no locus standi to institute the Company Petition. All this, after agreeing to pay the principal amount to the petitioning creditor, i.e., M/S Status Video, which Mrs Sushila Bhaita then represented as a sole proprietress.
14. Not much mileage can be drawn from the affidavit filed by Mrs Sushila Bhatia that this was a family business. The affidavit does not concede that Mrs Sushila Bhatia had no interest in the business or in the proprietary concern to which the principal amount of Rs. 15,33,000/- was owed by the Appellant-company. The Appellant, to pressurize Mrs. Sushila Bhatia went to the extent of inviting this Court to initiate perjury proceedings against her. Again, this was a frivolous attempt, and it was rightly rejected by the learned Company Court.
15. This is a clear case where the company has admitted being liable to the extent of at least Rs. 15,33,000/- to the petitioning creditor. This was stated in the Court proceedings, and even a schedule of instalment payments was provided. The first instalment was paid without demur; however, the Appellant company defaulted on subsequent instalments.
16. Accordingly, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the sole ground urged in support of these Appeals and the Appeals are liable to be dismissed. We dismiss all these Appeals. No costs. (Advait M. Sethna, J) (M. S. Sonak, J.)