STANTECH PROJECT ENGG. PVT. LTD. versus NICCO CORPORATION LTD.

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 13-08-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 165 
STANTECH PROJECTENGG. PVT. LTD. 
v. 
NICCO CORPORATION LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7373 of2005 etc.) 
AUGUST 13, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Concession - Winding up petitions against respondent-
company - Concession by counsel of the respondents to c 
pay the due debts in 10 and 8 equal instalments respectively 
- Company Judge disposed of the petition in view of the 
concession - Order of Company Judge challenged upto 
Supreme Court wherein the Court directed the respondent 
to move the Company Judge for modification of its order -
D 
Company Judge refused the modification - Division Bench 
of High Court by impugned order held that the counsel made 
the concession by mistake and set aside the order of 
Company Judge - On appeal, held: Order of the Division 
Bench is unjustified legally as well as equitably - Since the E 
respondent-company had failed to discharge the admitted 
debt even after service of statutory notice, the Company 
Judge had no alternative but to proceed for the winding-up of 
the Company- The counsel of the respondent had displayed 
legal sagacity in getting the winding-up postponed and F 
avoided the publication in the petition - Had he not done so, 
the respondent would have had to pay the entire debt at once 
or face certain commercial death as a consequence of 
publication/citation of winding-up petition - The respondent G 
abused the judicial process in order to delay the discharge 
of an acknowledged debt for almost a quarter of a century 
during which period he continued his business - However, 
order of Company Judge modified - The respondent• is 
directed to pay all the amounts due, alongwith the cost H 
165 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A imposed by the Company Judge and the cost of the present 
proceedings within 45 days of this judgment - Appeals 
allowed - Companies Act, 1956 - s. 439 -Administration of 
Justice -Abuse of Judicial Process. 
B 
Administration of Justice -
Proliferation and 
prolongation of litigation - Unwarranted lenient approach of 
the courts, results in proliferation and prolongation of litigation, 
leading to insurmountable pendency of litigation. 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7373 of2005 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2003 of the 
High Court at Calcutta in T 490 of 2003 in C.P. No. 432 of 
D 2000 
WITH 
C.A. No. 7374 of 2005 
E 
S. D. Singh, Bharti Tyagi, Vishwajit Singh for the 
F 
Appellant. 
R. C. Kohli for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Both these Appeals assail the 
common impugned Order passed by the Division Bench of 
the High Court at Calcutta on 29.9.2003, setting aside the Order 
passed by the Company Judge rejecting the plea of the 
G Respondent that the so-called concession made by the Junior 
Counsel should not be given curial recognition. 
2. The facts, succinctly stated, are that the Appellant had 
fileo Winding-up petitions against the Respondent on the 
H asseveration that debts admittedly payable by the Respondent 
STANTECH PROJECT ENGG. PVT. LTD. v. NICCO 
167 
CORPORATION LTD. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
to the Petitioner had remained outstanding even subsequent A 
to the issuance of a statutory Notice issued under Section 434 
of the Companies Act. 1956. 
Keeping in perspective the 
nature of the question of law raised before us, we need not go 
into the genesis or the characteristics of the contract between 
the parties. So far as Civil Appeal No. 7373 of 2005 is 
B 
concerned, the claim was for a sum of Rs.3,54,500/- together 
with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum together with 
Rs.1,09,958/- deducted by the Respondent on account of the 
tax deducted at source (TDS). These amounts have remained 
unpaid even after the receipt of the statutory notice. It is C 
palpably clear that the statement made by the learned counsel 
for the Respondent that these amounts would be paid in ten 
equal installments commencing from 16.8.2002, was so done 
in order to avert the ordering of an advertisemenUcitation in 
D 
the proceedings by the Company Judge. In Civil Appeal No. 
7374 of 2005, the claim was for a sum of Rs.8,08,314/- · 
together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum 
together with Rs.1,24,984/-which had been deducted by the 
Respondent on account of TDS. It appears that these amounts 
E 
were admitted by the Respondent in terms of its letter dated 
8.2.2000 as also in the Affid

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.