SURESH S MAKHARRIA v. BASSEIN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED
Discusses principles related to winding up of companies and interpretation of evidence in civil vs. criminal proceedings.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:10338-DB
Decision Date: 09-07-2025
List of Laws
Companies Act, 2013; The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Companies Act, 2013: Section 433 is discussed in paragraphs 8, 14, 27, and 32. Paragraph 8 mentions the winding-up petition filed under Section 433. Paragraph 14 states that Section 433 provides for circumstances in which the Court may wind up a company, specifically referencing clauses (a) to (i), and highlighting clause (e) which pertains to a company's inability to pay its debts. Paragraph 27 elaborates on the reason for enacting Section 433(e), stating it is to ensure that companies unable to pay debts do not continue activities and potentially defraud future creditors. Paragraph 32 concludes that there is no fault in the order to wind up the company under Section 433(e).
- The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138 is discussed in paragraphs 3, 12, 29, and 30. Paragraph 3 mentions that proceedings under Section 138 were initiated due to dishonored cheques. Paragraph 12 refers to the appellant's acquittal under Section 138 and argues that the basis for the winding-up notice falls. Paragraph 29 mentions criminal proceedings under Section 138 where the appellant was acquitted. Paragraph 30 states that findings in criminal proceedings under Section 138, based on "beyond reasonable doubt," cannot be relied upon while adjudicating civil proceedings based on "preponderance of probability."
🔒 For Members Only