Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- mysore general clauses act, 1899 section 10 & karnataka value added tax act, 2003, section 38(1) & karnataka value added tax rules, 2003 rule 148(4):[d.v. shylendra kumar, j] computation of time - assessment order passed by the assistant commissioner of commercial taxes -appeal under section 62 to the appellate authority - computation of period of limitation plea against dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation - held, the last date for presentation of the appeal being a holiday and the appeal presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of section 10 of the mysore general clauses act, 1899. the question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. impugned order.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

venkataramaiya, c.j. 1. this is an appeal against an order passed under section 162, companies act, by the learned second addl. district judge, bangalore, for winding up the appellant company. the ground on which the order was made is that the appellant failed to pay debts due to the respondents. on a perusal of the petition filed by the respondents and the objections thereto by the appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. respondents claimed rs. 8000 and and as being due but appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. the dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. the result of the transactions cannot be determined.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Venkataramaiya, C.J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Appeal allowed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372817',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Company',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372817',
		(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Chellaradh and Co Ltd Vs M V K Sundaram and anr - Citation 372817 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372817',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133312/companies-act-1913-complete-act">Companies Act, 1913</a> - Sections 162',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - MYSORE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 Section 10 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 148(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003
[K.A. No. 30/2005]
Section 38(1) & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 Rule 48(4):[D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Computation of time -  Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -Appeal under Section 62 to the appellate Authority -  Computation of period of limitation   Plea against dismissal of Appeal as barred by Limitation - Held, The last date for presentation of the Appeal being a holiday and the Appeal  presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.  The question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. Impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. 

Section 62 & Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Rules 148 & 149 & Mysore General Clauses Act (3 of 1899),Section 10:[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Filing of appeal-Limitation - Last date for filing appeal was a holiday  Held, Filing on next working day would be taken to be within time.  -  The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. III page 52 :It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action. ' An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1955-07-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.</p><p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :</p><p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'</p><p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:</p><p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'</p><p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :</p><p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'</p><p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.</p><p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.</p><p>4. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Company',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372817',
	(int) 1 => 'chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372817/chellaradh-co-ltd-vs-v-sundaram'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataramaiya, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 162, Companies Act, by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bangalore, for winding up the Appellant Company. The ground on which the order was made is that the Appellant failed to pay debts due to the Respondents. On a perusal of the petition filed by the Respondents and the objections thereto by the Appellant, it is seen that the claim is seriously disputed. Respondents claimed Rs. 8000 and and as being due but Appellant asserted that they are entitled to get only about Rs. 220 and odd which the appellant offered and was ready to pay. The dealings between the parties consist of items of debit and credit with respect to which, there is keen controversy. The result of the transactions cannot be determined unless a volume of correspondence and a number of account books are closely looked into and the proceeding treated as if it is a suit on accounts. Part of the difficulty for deciding as to whose version is to be accepted is due to the fact that the respondents appear to have had dealings with the Industrial Expansion Company which functioned as the Managing Agents of the appellant company and the need to distinguish the dealings which the Managing Agents had on their own account from those which they had on behalf of the appellant company. The Respondents, though notified, were absent at the hearing and not represented by any counsel. The lower Court has recorded a volume of evidence find entered into an unduly lengthy discussion of the materials placed before it in support of the claim and contentions of the parties.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the liability of the Appellant to Respondents for payment of amounts is said to have been involved. I do not think that the provisions of the Companies Act can be availed of for obtaining an adjudication of the right to obtain payment when it is contested and the finding involves such a detailed and lengthy investigation as is necessary for a decision in a suit. As stated in Palmer on 'Company Precedents' para 2,'Chap. III page 52 :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'It is now well-settled that a petition for winding up with a view to enforce payment of a disputed debt is an abuse of the process of the Court and should he dismissed with costs .... A winding up petition is not to be used as machinery to try a Common Law action.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>In 'Tulsidas Lalubhai v. Bharat Khand Cotton Mills Co., Ltd.', A.I.R. 1914 Bom. 251 (A) it is stated that:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the Court has first to see is whether that dispute is on the face of it genuine or merely a cloak of the Company's real inability to pay just debts.'',
	(int) 6 => '<p>In 'The Company v. Rameshwar Singh', A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 1004 (B) is an other case to the effect that 'when a debt is bona fide disputed by a debtor company, it Cannot be said to have 'neglected to pay' the debt'. Beasley T. observed with reference to a similar petition in : AIR1929Mad265 :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Courts will never allow creditors of a company to invoke the assistance of the Companies Act for getting payment of their debt. If there is genuine dispute with regard to the debt, then the creditor of the company must be referred to a suit.'',
	(int) 8 => '<p>An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section arc satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the Court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court-fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the Respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not Seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>3. In view of all this, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>4. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Company
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Jul-12-1955
Case Number	Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1953
Judge	Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.
Reported in	AIR1955Kant122; AIR1955Mys122
Acts	Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 162
Appellant	Chellaradh and Co. Ltd.
Respondent	M.V.K. Sundaram and anr.
Advocates:	B.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv.

Chellaradh and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V.K. Sundaram and anr. - Court Judgment