IN RE: SIDDHARTH AUTOMOBILES LTD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE company disputes not so much the factum of indebtedness to the petitioner as the quantum thereof to resist admission of the creditor's petition for having the company wound up. The company suggests that if accounts are required to be taken between the parties, that would have to be done in regular action and the winding up proceedings should await the result of such action.

(2.) THE manufacturer seeks to realise the price of cars sold by it, on principal to principal basis, to its distributor and is met with the plea that till such time the company is given credit for commission due to it, the claim must wait. The company seeks commission but does not quantify it, possibly because upon quantification the entirety of the demand for commission can be subtracted from the petitioner's claim and the remainder be found to be the admitted debt. The company raises the question of commission only to show that it had some form of counter -claim and urges that the citing of a counter -claim is enough to unsettle apparently settled accounts and resist a petition for winding up. Claims in rupees are resisted by counter claims in paisa and it is urged that till the exact excess of the rupees over the paisa is established, the petition cannot proceed to the next stage.

(3.) THE company relies on the principle established by Sir John Romilly, M.R., in Brighton Club & Norfolk Hotel Co. Ltd., In re 55 ER 873 which is summarised in the following lucid words: