{"id":52617,"date":"1994-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994"},"modified":"2015-02-06T13:45:56","modified_gmt":"2015-02-06T08:15:56","slug":"pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994","title":{"rendered":"Pradeshiya Industrial & … vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pradeshiya Industrial & … vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (3) 348, \t JT 1994 (1)\t579<\/div>\n
Author: S Mohan<\/div>\n
Bench: Mohan, S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPRADESHIYA  INDUSTRIAL & INVESTMENT CORPN. OF U.P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNORTH  INDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/02\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nMOHAN, S. (J)\nBENCH:\nMOHAN, S. (J)\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (3) 348\t  JT 1994 (1)\t579\n 1994 SCALE  (1)526\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMOHAN, J.- Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.The brief facts leading to this appeal are as\t follows.
\nThe  first  respondent, North India  Petrochemicals  Limited
\n(hereinafter  referred\tto  as ‘NIPL’)\tfiled  a  winding-up
\npetition  (Company Petition No. 1 of 1993) before  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow  under  Sections
\n433,  434  and 439 of the Companies Act,  1956\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
3.On July 1, 1988 a Shareholders’ Agreement or\tPromoters
\nAgreement   was\t entered  into.\t  That\tsuperseded   earlier
\nagreements  which  recorded that the grant of  a  Letter  of
\nIntent\tfor  the manufacture of 15,000 tonnes per  annum  of
\nPhthalic  Anhydride in favour of the  appellant-Corporation.
\nHowever, the said Letter of Intent was to be used,  utilised
\nand  implemented  in  collaboration with  M\/s  Dalmia  Dairy
\nIndustries Limited (Respondent 2 herein).  The collaboration
\nagreement or the promoters agreement contemplated that a new
\ncompany would be brought into existence called the  Northern
\nIndia  Petrochemicals  Limited.\t Clause 3 of  the  agreement
\nprovided that initial authorised capital would be Rs 5 lakhs
\nwhich  would be issued in equity shares of Rs 10 each  while
\nthe subscribed capital of the company would be such as would
\nbe  decided  by the Board of Directors of the  Company\tfrom
\ntime to time.\n<\/p>\n
4.Clause  6 of the said agreement contemplated that  each
\nparty would ensure that its respective shareholdings in\t the
\npaid-up\t equity capital of the company shall be 26% plus  10
\nequity shares for PICUP (the appellant herein) and 25% minus
\n10  equity  shares  for\t second\t respondent,  Dalmia   Dairy
\nIndustries Limited.\n<\/p>\n
5.Clause  7  of the agreement further provided\tthat  the
\nBoard  would consist of 13 Directors out of which 4 were  to
\nbe  nominated  by PICUP, the appellant herein and 3  by\t the
\nsecond respondent, Dalmia Dairy Industries and the remaining
\n6  Directors were to be appointed as per the  provisions  of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
6.Clause  13(a) stated that the appellant,  Dalmia  Dairy
\nIndustries  Limited  will contribute equal sums\t as  may  be
\nrequired, from time to time, for the purpose of\t preliminary
\nand exploratory and other expenses.  These contributions are
\nto  form part of the share capital agreed to be\t contributed
\nby each party under the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
7.Northern  India  Petrochemicals  Limited  came  to   be
\nincorporated on March 12, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
8.Differences arose between the second respondent and the
\nappellant.  The second respondent got the disputes  referred
\nto  arbitration as per clause 27 of the promoters  agreement
\ndated  July 1, 1988 by letter dated December 19, 1991.\t The
\nsecond\trespondent  nominated the former  Chief\t Justice  of
\nDelhi High Court, Justice Shri Shiv Prakash Narain, as their
\narbitrator.   Thereafter the appellant nominated  Shri\tD.N.
\nJha, former Chief Justice of
\n351<\/span>
\nAllahabad High Court.  These two arbitrators appointed\tShri
\nJustice\t M.H. Kania (former Chief Justice of this Court)  as
\nChairman.\n<\/p>\n
9.On  January  6,  1992, the first  respondent\tissued\ta
\nnotice\tunder Section 434 of the Act to the  appellant.\t  It
\nwas stated that an amount of Rs 140.33 lakhs had been  spent
\non the project.\t The notice further stated that an amount of
\nRs 72.50 lakhs was payable by the appellant under the  terms
\nof  the\t promoters  agreement.\tThat  amount  had  not\tbeen
\nforthcoming.   On  that\t ground\t it  is\t alleged  that\t the
\nappellant  was indebted to the tune of Rs 72.50 lakhs as  on
\nNovember 30, 1991 which the appellant was called upon to pay
\nas its share contribution of NIPL within three weeks of\t the
\nreceipt of the notice.\n<\/p>\n
10.On January 29, 1992 the appellant replied to the notice
\ndenying\t its liability to pay the amount of Rs 72.50  lakhs.
\nIt  was\t stated therein that the disputes raised  by  second
\nrespondent  M\/s Dalmia Industries Limited had  already\tbeen
\nreferred to arbitration and as such is pending adjudication.
\nHence, NIPL was not entitled to take any action.\n<\/p>\n
11.In  the winding-up petition it is alleged that the  sum
\nof Rs 72.50 lakhs is a debt payable by the appellant to\t the
\nfirst  respondent.   The  debt arose on\t the  basis  of\t the
\npromoters  agreement  between the appellant and\t the  second
\nrespondent   for  promoting  the  first\t  respondent-company
\nreferred to above.\n<\/p>\n
12.It  is further alleged that the appellant is liable\tto
\npay  towards certain expenses for exploratory  work.   Those
\nexpenses will be adjusted and treated as subscription to the
\nshare capital.\tThe appellant has agreed to subscribe by way
\nof  equity participation in the share capital.\tThat  amount
\nought to be paid.  There is a breach of promoters  agreement
\nfor  the failure to pay these amounts, namely, the  dues  on
\naccount\t of share capital and the expenses  for\t exploratory
\nwork.\tIt was alleged that the said sum of Rs\t72.50  lakhs
\nwas  due.  Therefore, the first respondent claimed to  be  a
\ncreditor.\n<\/p>\n
13.It  may  be\tnoted, as stated above,\t that  the  second
\nrespondent  has already referred the dispute to\t arbitration
\nunder clause 27 of the promoters agreement for\tadjudication
\nclaiming specific performance of the promoters agreement and
\nin the alternative for damages for breach of contract.\t The
\nsaid  amount is the basis for the winding-up petition as  it
\nis  one of the claims in the statement of claims before\t the
\narbitrators.   One  further fact requires to be\t noted;\t the
\npromoters  agreement  had already cancelled  as\t per  notice
\ndated October 31, 1992.\n<\/p>\n
14.In  view  of\t the  above,  the  appellant  denied   the
\nliability  to pay the amount on various grounds not only  in
\nthe company petition but also before the arbitrators.  Inter
\nalia  it  was  urged that the winding-up  petition  was\t not
\nmaintainable.\tThe  claim itself was doubtful.\t  It  was  a
\nmatter which required adjudication.  Therefore, it was not a
\ndebt as contemplated within the meaning of Sections 433\t and
\n434 of the Act.\t Respondent 1 is not a creditor.\n<\/p>\n
15.  Before  the  learned  Single  Judge  four\t preliminary
\nobjections were taken:\n<\/p>\n
352<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (1)The  petition does not comply\twith  the
\n\t      requirement  of the Company Rules\t insofar  as
\n\t      Rule 21 which is mandatory in character is not
\n\t      satisfied.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)Inasmuch as a creditor is seeking relief
\n\t      the  application has to be accompanied  by  an
\n\t      application  under Section 439(8) of the\tAct.
\n\t      There is also non-compliance of Section 439(8)
\n\t      and  as such Rule 97 of the Company Rules\t had
\n\t      been breached.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   There was no presentation in  accordance
\n\t      with Rule 95.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (4)   When  a  notice to show  cause  why\t the
\n\t      petition should not be admitted was  initially
\n\t      issued,  the notice was not-in the  prescribed
\n\t      form. In spite of it, publicity had been given
\n\t      in  the newspapers in order to pressurise\t the
\n\t      appellant to yield to the demand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.These preliminary objections were overruled by an order
\ndated  January\t28, 1993. ; Thereafter in dealing  with\t the
\nquestion whether the petition deserved to be admitted or not
\nit  was concluded that a prima facie case had been made\t out
\nfor  admission.\t  However, the advertisement  was  suspended
\ntill  further orders.  Aggrieved by the same, an appeal\t was
\npreferred to the Division Bench.  The preliminary objections
\nwhich  were  raised  before the learned\t Single\t Judge\twere
\nreiterated.  They were overruled.\n<\/p>\n
17.Another  objection taken was as to the  maintainability
\nof  the appeal.\t That was overruled on the ground  that\t the
\norder of the learned Single Judge was likely to require\t the
\nrespondents to face the winding-up proceedings.\t  Therefore,
\nan appeal would lie under Section 483 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
18.As to the admissibility of the winding-up petition, the
\nDivision  Bench is of the view that promoters agreement\t had
\nin  fact been entered into.  The company is the\t beneficiary
\nof  the\t agreement.  As a beneficiary it  could\t claim\tthat
\namount.\t  From\tthe material on record it is  seen  that  no
\nspecific plea had been taken to show the circumstances under
\nwhich  the  amount  had\t not been  paid\t by  the  appellant.
\nAccordingly, the appeal came to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
19.  Hence, the present special leave petition.\n<\/p>\n
20.  It\t is urged by the learned Solicitor General that\t the
\nlearned\t Single Judge had gone wrong while holding that\t the
\nadmissibility  of  winding-up  petition\t would\tdepend\tupon
\narguable issues.  Equally, the Division Bench failed to note
\nthat  the debt is bona fide disputed.  Further it failed  to
\nnote  that  the\t question  of  liability  is  still  pending
\nadjudication before the arbitrator.  No winding-up  petition
\ncan  be\t admitted unless the court comes to  the  conclusion
\nthat  the defence put up is moonshine.\tIn support of  these
\nsubmissions  reliance is placed on Madhusudan Gordhandas  v.
\nMadhu  Woollen Industries Pvt.\tLtd.’ In the<\/a>  instant  case,
\nthe  debt itself is yet to be established.   Merely  because
\nthe  promoters agreement had been signed it does not  follow
\nthat the appellant is liable as a debtor.
\n1 (1971)3SCC632:(1972)42CompCasl25
\n353<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
21.In\topposition  to\tthis,  learned\tcounsel\t for   the
\nrespondents  would  support the impugned  orders  contending
\nthat both the courts below have carefully analysed the legal
\nposition.  They have correctly found that the agreement\t had
\nbeen entered into under which there is an obligation to\t pay
\ncertain\t amount.  This obligation if not  discharged,  would
\namount to a debt.  Insofar as there is a prima facie case of
\nliability,  certainly the petition could be  admitted.\t The
\nruling\trelied on by the appellant has no relevance  to\t the
\nfacts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
22.To  determine the correctness of the above  submissions
\nit is necessary, on our part, to find out as to what exactly
\nis the position in relation to the debt, on facts.  As\tseen
\nfrom  the  earlier narration, the  promoters  agreement\t was
\nentered into between the appellant and Respondent 2,  Dalmia
\nIndustries  Limited.   Only under that agreement  the  first
\nrespondent, North India Petrochemicals Limited, was floated.
\nAs  per clauses 6 and 13(a) the appellant will have  to\t pay
\nits  share of contribution to the first respondent.   It  is
\nthe  case of the first respondent that already an amount  of
\nRs 140.33 lakhs has been spent on this project.\t  Therefore,
\ntowards\t each share the appellant is liable to contribute  a
\nsum of Rs 72.50 lakhs which, according to it, is a debt.  It
\nis  important  to note that by virtue of clause\t 31  of\t the
\nagreement the appellant was not obliged to proceed with\t the
\nobligation  cast upon it under the terms of  the  agreement.
\nClause 31 of the agreement reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “31.  Neither party to this agreement shall be
\n\t      considered  responsible  for  any\t breach\t  of
\n\t      failure of this agreement or any terms  hereof
\n\t      arising from the imposition of restriction  or
\n\t      onerous  regulations by any Government  agency
\n\t      or  local\t authority or by acts  of  civil  or
\n\t      military authority or other cause beyond their
\n\t      control.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Since the agreement has been cancelled the appellant is\t not
\nliable\tto  discharge  any  of\tits  obligations  under\t the
\nagreement.  If really, the cancellation is to be  challenged
\nthere are other ways of doing it.\n<\/p>\n
23.The\tsecond respondent, Dalmia Industries  Limited  has
\nresorted  to  arbitration proceedings and has  claimed\tthis
\nmoney.\t Hence, there is a substantial dispute\tinasmuch  as
\nthe  second respondent claims the said payment of  Rs  72.50
\nlakhs on the ground that they should be reimbursed.\n<\/p>\n
24.The appellant is a financial corporation which is fully
\nowned  by the State of Uttar Pradesh.  It cannot  be  denied
\nthat it is a profit-making organisation and is not incurring
\nlosses.\t   It  is  paying  dividends  on   annual   profits.
\nTherefore, there is no relationship of debtor and creditor.\n<\/p>\n
25.The defence of the appellant in relation to non-payment
\nis  a bona fide defence.  Whatever it may be, the  liability
\nof  the\t appellant is yet to be determined.  It is  in\tthis
\nfactual\t background  we will deal with legal aspect  of\t the
\nmatter.\t Section 433 of the Act says:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A company may be wound-up by the Court,(a) to\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)
\n\t      354<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e) if the company is unable to pay its debts;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (f)
\n\t      From the above it follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   There must be a debt; and
\n\t      (2)   the\t company must be unable to  pay\t the
\n\t      same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      An order under clause (e) is discretionary.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
26.A  debt  under this section must be a determined  or\t a
\ndefinite  sum  of money payable immediately or at  a  future
\ndate.\n<\/p>\n
27.What then is inability when the section says “unable to
\npay  its  dues”?   That should be taken\t in  the  commercial
\nsense.\t In that, it is unable to meet current demands.\t  As
\nstated\t by   William  James,  V.C.  it\t is   “plainly\t and
\ncommercially insolvent\tthat is to say, that its assets\t are
\nsuch,  and its existing liabilities are such, as to make  it
\nreasonably  certain   as to make the  Court  feel  satisfied
\nthat the existing and probable assets would be\tinsufficient
\nto  meet  the  existing\t liabilities”.\t(In  European\tLife
\nAssurance Society, Re2; V. V. Krishna Iyer & Sons v. New Era
\nMfg.  Co. Ltd. 3)\n<\/p>\n
28.While  dealing  with the scope of Section  433(e)  this
\nCourt  had  occasion to hold the following [at page  131  in
\nMadhusudan  Gordhandas1\t [the  case  relied  on\t by  learned
\nSolicitor General)]: (SCC pp. 638-39, paras 20-22)
\n\t      “Two  rules are well settled.  First,  if\t the
\n\t      debt is bona fide disputed and the defence  is
\n\t      a substantial one, the court will not wind  up
\n\t      the  company.   The  court  has  dismissed   a
\n\t      petition\tfor  winding-up where  the  creditor
\n\t      claimed  a sum for goods sold to\tthe  company
\n\t      and  the company contended that no  price
\n\t      had  been agreed upon and the sum demanded  by
\n\t      the creditor was unreasonable. (See London and
\n\t      Paris Banking Corpn., Re4.  Again, a  petition
\n\t      for  winding-up  by  a  creditor\twho  claimed
\n\t      payment of an agreed sum for work done for the
\n\t      company  when the company contended  that\t the
\n\t      work  had\t not  been  done  properly  was\t not
\n\t      allowed. (See Brighton Club and Horfold  Hotel
\n\t      Co. Ltd., Re5.)
\n\t      Where  the debt is undisputed the\t court\twill
\n\t      not  act upon a defence that the\tcompany\t has
\n\t      the  ability to pay the debt but\tthe  company
\n\t      chooses not to pay that particular debt.\t(See
\n\t      A\t Company, Re6.) Where, however, there is  no
\n\t      doubt  that  the company owes the\t creditor  a
\n\t      debt  entitling him to a winding-up order\t but
\n\t      the  exact amount of the debt is disputed\t the
\n\t      court  will  make a winding-up  order  without
\n\t      requiring\t the creditor to quantify  the\tdebt
\n\t      precisely. (See Tweeds Garages Ltd., Re7.) The
\n\t      principles  on which the court acts are  first
\n\t      that the defence of the
\n\t      2\t    LR (1869) 9 Eq 122
\n\t      3\t    (1965) 35 Comp Cas 410: (1965) 1 Comp LJ
\n\t      179 (Ker)
\n\t      4\t    LR (1874) 19 Eq 444
\n\t      5\t    (1865) 35 Beav 204
\n\t      6\t    (1894) 94 SJ 369: (1894) 2 Ch 349 (Ch D)\n<\/p>\n
\t      7. (1962) Ch 406: 1962 Comp Cas 795 (Ch D)
\n\t      355<\/span>
\n\t      company is in good faith and one of substance,
\n\t      secondly, the defence is likely to succeed  in
\n\t      point  of\t law,  and,  thirdly,  the   company
\n\t      adduces  prima  facie proof of  the  facts  on
\n\t      which the defence depends.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Another  rule which the court follows is\tthat
\n\t      if  there is opposition to the making  of\t the
\n\t      windi  Dg-Up order by the creditors the  court
\n\t      will consider their wishes and may decline  to
\n\t      make the winding-up order.  Under Section\t 557
\n\t      of  the  Companies Act, 1956, in\tall  matters
\n\t      relating to the winding-up of the company\t the
\n\t      court   may  ascertain  the  wishes   of\t the
\n\t      creditors.  The wishes of the shareholders are
\n\t      also  considered, though, perhaps,  the  court
\n\t      may attach greater weight to the views of\t the
\n\t      creditors.  The law on this point is stated in
\n\t      Palmer’s Company Law, 21st Edn., page 742,  as
\n\t      follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ‘This right to a winding-up order is, however,
\n\t      qualified\t by  another rule,  viz.,  that\t the
\n\t      court  will regard the wishes of the  majority
\n\t      in  value of the creditors, and if,  for\tsome
\n\t      good  reason,  they  object  to  a  winding-up
\n\t      order, the court in its discretion may  refuse
\n\t      the order.’
\n\t      The  wishes of the creditors will\t however  be
\n\t      tested  by  the  court on the  grounds  as  to
\n\t      whether  the case of the persons opposing\t the
\n\t      windingup\t is  reasonable;  secondly,  whether
\n\t      there  are  matters which should\tbe  inquired
\n\t      into and investigated if a winding-up order is
\n\t      made.  It is also well-settled that a winding-
\n\t      up  order\t will not be made  on  a  creditor’s
\n\t      petition\tif it would not benefit him  or\t the
\n\t      company’s\t creditors generally.\tThe  grounds
\n\t      furnished\t  by  the  creditors  opposing\t the
\n\t      winding-up  will have an important bearing  on
\n\t      the  reasonableness of the case. (See P. &  J.
\n\t      Macrae Ltd., Re8)”\n<\/p>\n
29.It is beyond dispute that the machinery for\twinding-up
\nwill  not be  allowed to be utilized merely as a  means\t for
\nrealising  its\tdebts due from a   company.  In\t Amalgamated
\nCommercial  Traders  (P) Ltd. v.  A.C.K.<\/a>  rishnaswami9\tthis
\nCourt  quoted  with  approval  the  following  passage\tfrom
\nluckley on the Companies Acts, (1 3th Edn., p. 45 1):
\n“It  is\t well-settled that ‘a winding-up petition is  not  a
\nlegitimate  means of seeking to enforce payment of the\tdebt
\nwhich  is  bona fide disputed by the  company.\t A  petition
\npresented  ostensibly  for a windingup order but  really  to
\nexercise pressure will be dismissed, and under circumstances
\nmay  be stigmatised as a scandalous abuse of the process  of
\nthe court’.”\n<\/p>\n
30.  Examined\tin the light of the above, we are unable  to
\nuphold\tthe  judgments\tof the courts  below  on  the  facts
\nnarrated above.\t Our reasons are as  under:
\n(1961) 1 All ER 302: 31 Comp Cas 424 (CA)
\n(1965) 35 Comp Cas 456 (SC)
\n356<\/span>
\n(1)The\tbasis of the claim of the first respondent for\tRs
\n72.50  lakhs is the promoters agreement dated July 1,  1988.
\nThis agreement has been cancelled by the appellant by notice
\ndated October 31, 1992.\t Though the learned Single Judge  of
\nthe High Court referred to this aspect he had not pursued it
\nfurther.   He  has not considered as to what  would  be\t the
\nconsequence.\tUnfortunately,\t the  Division\t Bench\t has
\noverlooked this aspect when it held thus:
\n“In the present case, there is an allegation in the petition
\nthat  there was an agreement between the Company and  Dalmia
\nDairy  Industries for promoting the petitioner\tCompany\t and
\nthat  under the terms of that agreement the Company  had  to
\npay certain amounts.  There is nothing on record to  suggest
\nthat such an agreement was not entered into.”
\n(2)The first respondent is not a creditor.  The\t appellant
\nis not a debtor because it is a financial institution for an
\namount\twhich  is  agreed to  be  subscribed.\tNeither\t the
\nlearned Single Judge nor the Division Bench has decided this
\nimportant  question whether there is a debt and the  company
\nhas either neglected or is unable to pay.
\n(3)The\tsame  claim is the subject-matter  of  arbitration
\nwhich  is  pending  adjudication.  Therefore,  there  is  no
\ndefiniteness about it.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  In\t view of all these, there is no prima facie  dispute
\nas to the debt.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  The  defence raised is a substantial one and  not\tmere
\nmoonshine.  We find it difficult to appreciate the reasoning
\nof  the\t learned Single Judge when he holds that  there\t are
\narguable issues and, therefore, the winding-up petition\t has
\nto  be admitted.  On this aspect the courts below failed  to
\nnote  that  the\t admission of  the  winding-up\tpetition  is
\nfraught with serious consequence as far as the appellant  is
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
31.We  are  informed that the financial\t position  of  the
\nappellant is sound.  It is the largest financial corporation
\nof  the State of Uttar Pradesh.\t It has\t rendered  financial
\nassistance of Rs 1024.83 crores till March 1992 to more than
\n100  industrial\t units and has also  promoted  joint  sector
\nprojects.  It is profit-making financial corporation and  is
\npaying dividend as seen from the balance sheet for the\tyear
\n1991-92,  (filed  along with special leave  petition).\t The
\nassets\tof the appellant-corporation are Rs  5,26,35,36,568.
\nThe reserves are Rs 17,60,15,222.  The profits earned by the
\nappellant before payment of tax is Rs 7.40 crores and  after
\nmeeting its financial liabilities, Rs 2.78 crores.\n<\/p>\n
32.Thus,  we find no justification whatever for\t admitting
\nthe winding-up petition.  Accordingly the impugned judgments
\nare hereby set aside.  Civil Appeal will stand allowed\twith
\ncosts to be borne equally by Respondents 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
358<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pradeshiya Industrial & … vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (3) 348, JT 1994 (1) 579 Author: S Mohan Bench: Mohan, S. (J) PETITIONER: PRADESHIYA INDUSTRIAL & INVESTMENT CORPN. OF U.P. Vs. RESPONDENT: NORTH INDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/02\/1994 BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52617","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPradeshiya Industrial & ... vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pradeshiya Industrial & ... vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-06T08:15:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pradeshiya Industrial & … vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-06T08:15:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3191,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994\",\"name\":\"Pradeshiya Industrial & ... vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-06T08:15:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pradeshiya Industrial & … vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pradeshiya Industrial & ... vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pradeshiya Industrial & ... vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-06T08:15:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pradeshiya Industrial & … vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994","datePublished":"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-06T08:15:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994"},"wordCount":3191,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994","name":"Pradeshiya Industrial & ... vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-06T08:15:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeshiya-industrial-vs-north-india-petrochemicals-ltd-on-9-february-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pradeshiya Industrial & … vs North India Petrochemicals Ltd on 9 February, 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52617","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52617"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52617\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52617"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52617"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52617"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}