THANKAM PAUL Vs. CITY HOSPITAL PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for 'winding up' the first Respondent Company, which is a Hospital, under Section 433(e) and 433(f) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956.

(2.) The above Respondent Company was registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with an authorised share capital of Rs. 15 lakhs divided into '1000' equity shares of Rs. 1000 each and 500 'preference shares' of Rs. 1000 each. The Petitioner is the daughter of late Rubina Paul, who was a shareholder having 94 shares. On demise of the said shareholder occurred on 8-1-1994, the Petitioner obtained a Succession Certificate as per the order passed by the Sub Court, Cherthala [in O.R (Succession) 13/1994], whereby the Petitioner became eligible to have the rights and liberties in respect of the above shares held by the Original allottee.

(3.) Claiming that the Petitioner is a' contributory' entitled for the rights of the shareholder of the Company as provided under Section 439(4)(b) of the Companies Act, the Petitioner has approached this Court contending that the Company is liable to be wound up, referring to the circumstances under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act In support of the case, it is contended that the Company is unable to settle the liabilities, of which the major claims are stated as arrears of electricity charges payable to the KSEB (to an extent of about Rs. 26 lakhs); arrears of water charges payable to Kerala Water Authority (to an extent of about Rs. 4 lakhs); decree amount stated as payable to the Bank of India (to an extent of about Rs. 10 lakhs); claim by the Indian Bank, Anr. Bank at Chennai in O.A. 356 of 1997 pending before the DRT, Chennai (to an extent of Rs. 86 lakhs); claim by M/s Standard Medical Pharmaceuticals, Hyderabad (to an extent of about Rs. 14.13 lakhs) etc. In support of the contention that the substratum of the Company is lost, two documents have been produced along with C.A. No. 627 of 2006, which are Annexure A-1 letter dated 2-2-2006 sent by the Managing Director of the first Respondent Company to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Annexure A-2 reply notice dated 5-3-2006 sent by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the Managing Director of the first Respondent. Different Company Applications have been filed at different points of time, seeking for different reliefs and counter-affidavit has been filed from the part of the opposite side in the aforesaid proceedings. Pursuant to the order passed in C.A. 326 of 2010, Addl. 2nd Respondent has also been brought into the party array (who is stated as a shareholder), who has filed his version with regard to the status and affairs of the Company, which is mainly in support of the stand taken by the first Respondent Company, rebutting the averments and allegations in the C.P. and asserting that the Company is not liable to be wound up, as the circumstances contemplated under Section 433(e) and (f) have not been established.