Join for updates
Skip to content
IBC Law Reporter
  • Home
  • About Us
  • IBC News
  • Webinars/Seminars
  • Articles/Blogs/Write Ups
  • Resource
  • Contact Us
  • Ebook

Even an unregistered company is amenable or subject to winding up proceedings under Part-II comprising of Section 375 of the newly enacted Companies Act, 2013and sub-Clause 3(b) is pari materia to Section 583 of the old Companies Act, 1956- Delhi HC

  • Post Author:admin
  • Post published:July 6, 2024

ARABIAN OILFIELD SUPPLIERS & SERVICES vs GREKA DRILLING (INDIA) LIMITED

CO.PET. 88/2016 & CO.APPL. 381/2016, CO.APPL. 382/2016, CO.APPL. 1514/2018

Facts:

1) Company is engaged in the business of providing drilling services for the oil and gas sector, and is incorporated as a „Foreign Company‟ under the Companies Act, 1956. Pursuant to certain discussions and negotiations, the respondent company placed a purchase order bearing No. GDIL PO 2014255 dated 11.12.2014, with the petitioner company, for the supply of CIF Kolkata Port casing material of desired specifications. The said purchase order was for an amount of US$ 738,380/. The respondent placed another purchase order bearing No. GDIL PO2014277 dated 24.12.2014, for the supply of casing material of a different specification, and said order amounted to US$ 199,466,50

2) Petitioner duly supplied the goods to the respondent company as per the purchase orders and raised certain invoices against the same dated 29.12.2014, 05.02.2015 and 15.02.2015 for a total amount of US$ 818,496.58/-. Further, it is stated that except the amount of US$ 147,111.66/-, paid by the respondent company in instalments, and the last payment having been made in August 2015, the respondent company did not make any further payments. Thereafter, the petitioner company raised certain further invoices in respect of delay in payments and the same amounted to US$ 66,957.34/-.

3) Petitioner company was constrained to serve a statutory legal notice dated 15.10.2015 under Section 434 of the Act, calling upon the respondent company to make good the payment of US$ 723,193.03 along with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the dates of the respective invoices raised. It is stated that the said legal notice was received by the respondent company on 23.10.2015, and yet they did not respond to the same, nor did the respondent company comply with the demand raised therein and failed/neglected to pay the sum demanded.

4) Present company petition has been instituted under Section 433 (e) and (f) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act of 1956, seeking winding up of the respondent company – M/s. Greka Drilling (India) Limited, predicated on the non-payment of outstanding dues to the tune of US$ 723,193.03/- along with due interest.

Issue: Whether the petition can be allowed ?

Arguments:

Respondent:

1) Counsel submitted that since it is a Foreign Company, the winding up proceedings instituted against it are not maintainable. The above-noted appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.11.2018, granting liberty to the respondent company (appellant therein) to file a review petition.

Decision: Hon’ble HC transferred the petition to NCLT>

Rationale:

1) It held that a careful perusal of the section 583 of the Companies Act 1956 would clearly bring out that the respondent company is an unregistered company and the circumstances under which an unregistered company may be wound up are indicated vide sub-clause (4) to Section 583 of the Companies Act. A fortiori, since the respondent company has been unable to pay its debts, winding up proceedings against the company are clearly maintainable.

2) It held that while it is the opinion of this Court that the present winding up petition is maintainable against the respondent company, since these proceedings are still at a nascent stage and no substantive orders have been passed towards the winding up of the respondent company, it would be appropriate for the same to be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal.

Order:

Download

Read more articles

Previous PostRelated Parties Of The Corporate Debtor Cannot Circumvent Proviso To Section 21(2) Of IBC By Assignment Of Financial Debt To A Third Party: NCLAT 
Next PostDisbursal of fund as appearing in the definition of financial debt is required but the definition does not use the expression that disbursal should be made to the Corporate Debtor only. Hence, it can be implied that any disbursal made on behalf of the Corporate Debtor or at the instructions of the Corporate Debtor may also tantamount to disbursal made to the Corporate Debtor-NCLAT
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Latest Posts

  • Distribution of accumulated cash lying in the bank account of the CD to the stakeholders | Section 53 & Regulation 42 of Liquidation Regulations
    August 11, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Monitoring Committee or the Resolution Applicant is not empowered to file/pursue PUEF/avoidance transactions proceedings | NCLT Delhi | 01.07.2021
    Monitoring Committee or the Resolution Applicant is not empowered to file/pursue PUEF/avoidance transactions proceedings | NCLT Delhi | 01.07.2021
    July 16, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • IBC Law Reporter’s Insights on new changes in CIRP Regulations | 14.07.2021
    IBC Law Reporter’s Insights on new changes in CIRP Regulations | 14.07.2021
    July 15, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Neither the proceedings for recovery of the dues nor the proceedings for recovery of possession of the allotted premises can be allowed to continue or any proposed action in that regard can be sustained during the currency of the CIRP-NCLT Mumbai
    Neither the proceedings for recovery of the dues nor the proceedings for recovery of possession of the allotted premises can be allowed to continue or any proposed action in that regard can be sustained during the currency of the CIRP-NCLT Mumbai
    July 13, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Bank Guarantee (BG) can be invoked even after the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016- NCLAT
    Bank Guarantee (BG) can be invoked even after the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016- NCLAT
    July 10, 2021/
    0 Comments

Follow Us

  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab

Get in Touch

IBC Law Reporter

Phone: +91 83989-94547
Email: support@ibclawreporter.in

www.ibclawreporter.in

Follow Us

  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab

Contact Us





    Quick Links

    Home
    About Us
    Contact Us
    Ebook
    Our Recommendation

    Copyright 2026 - IBC Law Reporter | All Right Reserved
    Close Menu
    • Home
    • About Us
    • IBC News
    • Webinars/Seminars
    • Articles/Blogs/Write Ups
    • Resource
    • Contact Us
    • Ebook