The judgment in Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Railway Co. Ltd. (supra) instructs that the court must be strict in assessing whether all the conditions laid down in Section 163(1)(i) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 carries the same provision in the successor statute) have all been complied with before the inference of the inability of the company to pay its debts based on the legal fiction therein is drawn. The judgment is the specific recognition, in the context of the identical provision in the predecessor statute as Section 434(1)(a) of the current Act, of the general principle that a deeming provision must be strictly construed and all conditions therein must have been adhered to before the legal fiction thereunder can be seen to operate.
Since the company’s counterclaim is by way of an unliquidated sum in damages, and the company has no defence to the petitioner’s claim herein, the company is permitted to furnish security to the extent of the petitioner’s claim of Rs.1,41,38,347/- within a fortnight from date whereupon this petition will remain permanently stayed. The company says that it has instituted winding-up proceedings in respect of its claim against the petitioner under the agreement of April 7, 2010.
So far exercise of jurisdiction vested upon the Company Court under Section 446(2) of the Act is concerned, in my view and also in view of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, it is already settled that this Court have ample power to adjudicate and determine all questions that arises in winding up. Such questions include eviction of trespassers from property of the Company (in liquidation) and the Company Court also by a summary order can direct eviction of a trespassers from the Company property. But Company Court must follow the law of the land in regard to such eviction.
The authority of Court to direct investigation was elaborately considered by us in our earlier decision when we ultimately permitted the Central Government to carry on investigation. The decisions in the case of Sreeman Chunder Dey (supra), Vinay Metal Printers (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Ushacomm India (P.) Ltd. (supra) were considered by us in the earlier decision rendered in the former appeal referred to above.
The bunch of correspondence relied upon by the petitioner has been collectively annexed as annexure “C” to the petition and referred to at paragraph 8 of the petition. The affidavit-in-opposition deals with paragraph 8 of the petition at paragraph 9 thereof and does not question the authenticity of the copy documents appended as annexure C to the petition.
The company was in business of publishing newspaper for almost a century. The main ingredient required for the purpose is news print. Hence, it is expected, the company would know the prevalent market rate. In any event, when the respondent agreed to give rebate, the company did not raise any protest. Their protest came when the respondent insisted payment and threatened legal action. The defence so advanced was not bona fide.
In the instant case, the agreement was entered into between the parties on 1-7-2012 and by the mail dated 4-7-2012, the petitioner evinced her desire not to go ahead with the transaction. Indeed, the petitioner unilaterally offered the deduction in terms of the agreement though it would have been understandable for the petitioner even to require a reconsideration of the matter since the termination followed within the days of the execution of the agreement.
Moment the commercial surcharge is recovered irrespective of the provisions of the agreement entered into by and between the landlord and tenant it immediately become exigible to tax as rental income from house property for agreement binds the parties thereto and it becomes irrelevant the moment it is found to be in conflict with legal provision on the subject.
The company cannot demonstrate that it had, contemporaneously or otherwise, complained of the goods supplied by the petitioner not adhering to any of the specifications stipulated in the purchase orders. Even the company’s grievance as to the size of the goods is not tenable since the purchase orders specified the size to be 0-1 mm.
Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
