Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

Mr. Justice R.M. Kantawala

Acts

provisions of section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956.
provisions of sub-section (1)(a)of section 434.
section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956.
COMPANIES ACT 1956
section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act.
SECTION 433 COMPANIES ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner (who carried on business as M/s. Engisports, Bombay) produced and distributed brochures entitled "Cricket's in the air" for cricket tours. In October 1968 the petitioner purchased from the British India General Insurance Company Ltd. a special contingency policy (policy No. SC-A 82812, dated October 15, 1968) for a premium of Rs. 800 to insure against risks including non-production/non-distribution of a proposed brochure in connection with an expected M.C.C. cricket tour. The policy was to run from October 11, 1968 until distribution of the brochure at the test match but not later than the end of February 1969.

By about November 12, 1968 the petitioner had secured confirmed advertisement orders amounting to Rs. 62,400 and expected further orders of about Rs. 23,950. The M.C.C. tour was subsequently cancelled (announced in the third week of November 1968) for want of sanction of foreign exchange, and the petitioner claimed that the contingency in the policy had materialised and that Rs. 65,000 was due as consequential loss. The petitioner served a notice dated January 21, 1969 (treated as a statutory notice under the Companies Act, 1956) calling upon the company to pay Rs. 65,000 within three weeks; the company resisted the claim by letter dated February 5, 1969, asserting reliance on representations, disputing liability and contending that the policy provided for arbitration and was not properly payable on the material facts.

On August 8, 1969 the petitioner presented a winding-up petition against the company under the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the company had neglected to pay its debts in spite of service of a statutory notice and was unable to pay its debts. The court issued notice for cause to be shown; the company appeared and filed an affidavit denying liability, asserting the petitioner had incurred no printing costs, relying on an arbitration clause and asserting the petition was an abuse of process used to apply pressure.

The hearing concerned whether the petition should be admitted (i.e., whether the company should be wound up) based on section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, which treats a company's neglect to pay a demanded debt (over Rs.500) for three weeks as indicating inability to pay debts.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, for the purposes of section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, the company can be deemed unable to pay its debts because it neglected to pay the petitioner's claim of Rs. 65,000 after service of a statutory demand.
Whether the insurance policy in question is a contract of indemnity (requiring proof of actual loss) or a special contingency/valued policy obliging payment of the stated sum on the occurrence of the insured event without inquiry into actual loss.
Whether the sum of Rs. 65,000 is a pre-agreed (valued) amount or merely the maximum indemnity/limit of liability under the policy.
Whether the arbitration clause in the policy (making an award a condition precedent to any right of action or suit) prevents the petitioner from invoking the statutory demand route under section 434(1)(a) before securing an award.
Whether the company's denial of liability constitutes a bona fide dispute which would render a winding-up petition an abuse of process.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The policy is a "special contingency policy" and not a contract of indemnity; upon the happening of the insured event the company is bound to pay Rs. 65,000 without proof of actual loss.
The policy is a valued policy entitling the petitioner to Rs. 65,000 as specified.
Because the claim was not paid despite service of a statutory notice dated January 21, 1969, the company must be deemed unable to pay its debts under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, and the winding-up petition should be admitted.

Company's Arguments

The policy is a contract of indemnity (not a consequential loss policy that insures profits) and the assured must prove actual loss before recovery; the petitioner had not incurred printing costs.
The policy was issued in reliance on certain representations by the petitioner (set out in the company's letter of February 5, 1969).
The Rs. 65,000 figure represents the maximum amount that might be claimed (limit of liability), not a pre-agreed liquidated sum (i.e., not a valued policy).
The policy contains an arbitration clause making an award a condition precedent to any right of action; therefore the petitioner had no cause of action until the arbitration award was obtained.
There is a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds about liability and quantum; presenting a winding-up petition to enforce a disputed debt is an abuse of the court's process.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Tulsidhas v. Bharatkhand Cotton Mills	That where a company defends on the ground that a debt is disputed, the court must examine whether the dispute on the face of it is genuine or merely a cloak for inability to pay.	The court applied the principle that a disputed debt must be genuine (not a sham) before admitting a winding-up petition under section 434(1)(a); the company's dispute was treated as substantial.
Amalgamated Commercial Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami (Supreme Court decision)	Affirmation of the settled law that a winding-up petition is not a legitimate means to enforce payment of a debt bona fide disputed by the company; such petitions will be dismissed and may be treated as an abuse of process when used to exert pressure.	The court relied on this authority to reject the petitioner’s use of winding-up proceedings to determine a disputed insurance claim and to hold that the petition was an abuse of process because the company's denial of liability was based on substantial grounds.
Buckley on the Companies Acts (13th ed., cited with approval)	Textual exposition (approved by the Supreme Court) explaining that petitions on disputed debts are not the correct mechanism and the practice is to dismiss such petitions where a bona fide dispute exists.	The court referenced the general doctrine (via Amalgamated Commercial Traders) that supports dismissing winding-up petitions founded on bona fide disputed debts; it guided the court's approach to the present petition.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a step-by-step analysis focused on whether the petitioner had established that the company was "unable to pay its debts" within the meaning of section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court identified several interlinked legal questions for resolution: the character of the policy (indemnity versus contingency or valued policy), whether the Rs. 65,000 figure was a pre-agreed valued sum or merely the maximum indemnity, and the effect of the arbitration clause which made an award a condition precedent to any action or suit.

The court observed that the operative wording of the policy begins "THE COMPANY SHALL INDEMNIFY THE INSURED against ..." and stated the well-settled rule that an indemnity clause requires the assured to prove an actual loss. The court recognized that a pure contingency insurance or a valued policy might operate differently, but concluded these were precisely the questions that required determination and could not be resolved by treating the statutory notice as establishing an undisputed debt.

The court then addressed the company's contention that it had relied on representations by the petitioner about intended advertisement orders and anticipated printing costs. It noted the preamble of the policy and that the company had asserted these representations in its correspondence and affidavit. The presence of a substantial factual and legal dispute about both liability and quantum (including whether printing costs had in fact been incurred) meant the debt was disputed on substantial grounds.

The court also emphasised the effect of condition No. 8 (the arbitration clause) on the petitioner's rights: the clause made an award a condition precedent to any right of action or suit on the policy. The company therefore maintained that the petitioner had no actionable claim until an arbitration award was obtained, undermining the basis for a statutory demand under section 434(1)(a).

Relying on established authorities (including Tulsidhas and the Supreme Court's treatment in Amalgamated Commercial Traders approving Buckley on the Companies Acts), the court reiterated the principle that a winding-up petition is not an appropriate means to enforce a bona fide disputed debt and will be dismissed when the dispute is genuine and significant. Applying that principle to the facts before it, and noting that the petitioner did not allege commercial insolvency (and that cash balances of approximately Rs. 78 lakhs were pointed out by the company), the court found the company's denial of liability to be based on substantial grounds and concluded that permitting the petitioner to pursue a winding-up petition would be an abuse of process.

Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and made specific directions as to costs and their treatment in any subsequent arbitration or suit, reflecting the court's disposition that the matter of liability and quantum must be determined by the appropriate forum or process (arbitration or suit) rather than by winding-up proceedings.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The petition for winding up is dismissed.

Direct consequences for the parties:

The winding-up petition presented by the petitioner was dismissed by the court as an abuse of process because the company's refusal to pay the claimed sum was a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds.
The costs of the petition were quantified at Rs. 500. The court ordered that such costs will be treated as the costs in any arbitration proceedings or suit if such proceedings are commenced within 12 weeks from the date of the order. If no arbitration proceedings or suit are commenced within that 12-week period, the petitioner shall pay the company's costs of the petition, fixed at Rs. 500.

Wider legal implications: The court applied existing authorities (including the Supreme Court decision cited) reaffirming that winding-up petitions cannot be used to enforce debts that are bona fide disputed. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal principle or precedent beyond applying and following established law.

Show full summary ...

British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. State Of Maharastra

1. This petition is filed for winding up of the British India General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company") on the ground that it it unable to pay its debts. The company carried on the business of insurance. The petitioner used to carry on the business, inter alia, of producing and distributing brochures entitled "Cricket's in the air" during th visits of foreign cricketing teams in India. This business was carried on by him in the name and style of M/s. Engisports, Bombay. In or about the year 1966, the petitioner had taken but what he described a special contingency policy to cover th risk of non-production and/or non-distribution of this brochures during the tour of the West Indies Cricket Team in the year 1966-67. In our about October, 1968, it was reported that the M.C.C. Cricket Team was likely to tour India during December, 1968, or January-February, 1969. Union payment of a premium of Rs. 800 the petitioner took from the company a special contingency policy being policy No. SC-A 82812, dated October 15, 1968, with a view to insure himself against the risk of non-publication and/or non-production of his proposed brochure during the test match to be played by the M.C.C. Cricket Team. The insurance was to be effective from October 11, 1968, and was to continue till the date of the distribution of the said brochure at the test match but not later than the end of February, 1968. It is the petitioner's case that upon a true construction of the policy, it constitutes a contract between the petitioner and the company, inter alia, to pay a sum of Rs. 65,000 in the event of the happening or materialisation of any of the contingencies specified in the said policy and in particular in the event of the proposed M.C.C. test match not taking place in Bombay for any reason whatsoever. After obtaining this policy, according to the petitioner, by about November 12,1968, he collected confirmed advertisement orders in a sum of Rs. 62,400 and was waiting for the receipt of further advertisement orders aggregating to about Rs. 23,900 from persons who had regularly advertised in the petitioner's past brochures. In or about the third week of November, 1968, it was announced that the proposed cricket tour of the M.C.C. Cricket Team was canceled for want of sanction of foreign exchange by the General Government. It is the case of the petitioner that upon the cancellation of the said M.C.C. test match in Bombay, the contingency specified in the said policy materialised and consequently there became due and payable by the company to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 65,000 as provided by the said policy. By his letter dated November, 25,1968, the petitioner called upon the company to pay the said sum of Rs. 65,000 as a consequential loss. The company, by its manager's letter dated November 30,1968, required the petitioner to produce the relevant books of accounts and papers before Messrs. Mehta and Padamsy, who were appointed by the company as independent professional surveyors. Messrs. Mehta and Padamsy by their letter dated December 7, 1968, acknowledged that the petitioner had produced before them the lists (1) of confirmed booking of advertisements of Rs. 62,400 and (2) of regular clients' advertisements of Rs. 23,950. By the said letter Messrs. Mehta and Padamsy required the petitioner to produce various documents therein specified in order to enable them to assess and certify the loss. By his letter dated December 10,1968, the petitioner adopted the attitude that his claim for Rs. 65,000 was pursuant to the policy taken by him and it was unnecessary for him to produce any proof or evidence of the consequential loss suffered by him. Thereupon further correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the company. Ultimately by his attorneys' letter, dated January 21, 1969, the petitioner gave a notice calling upon the company to pay the loss in the sum of Rs. 65,000 within three weeks of this receipt of the said notice. This notice was treated by him as a statutory notice under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. By the said notice, the attorneys of the petitioner informed the company that in the event of the non-payment of the petitioner's dues, he would adopt appropriate proceedings for liquidation of the company. By its attorneys' letter dated February 5, 1969, the company resisted the claim that was made by the petitioner. In this letter, the company pointed out that the policy of insurance was issued relying upon certain representations made by the petitioner which are specified in this letter. They also contended that the risk covered by the policy was a loss of the cost of getting the advertisements printed which loss was estimated by the petitioner in anticipation at Rs. 65,000. By this letter, the company pointed out that the threat of adopting winding-up proceedings against the company to accept and pay the claim which was not justified at all; that a winding-up petition was not a way of seeking to enforce a payment of debt which was bona fide disputed. Thereupon further correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the company but the company was unwilling to comply with the request of the petitioner to pay Rs. 65,000. On August 8, 1969, the petitioner presented to this court a petition for the winding up of the company on the ground that the company had neglected to pay the debts in spite of a statutory notice being served upon the company. It was alleged that the company was unable to pay the debts and was in insolvent circumstances.

2. This petition was accepted by this court on August 8, 1969, and a notice was directed to be issued to the company asking it to show cause why the winding-up petition should not be admitted.

3. Pursuance to this notice, the company appeared and filed an affidavit in reply showing cause against the admission of this petition. It was, inter alia, pointed out by the company in its affidavit that apart from collecting the advertisement orders in the sum of Rs. 62,400 the petitioner did not take any steps whatsoever towards the printing or publication of the M.C.C. brochure. The company denied that the petitioner was entitled to the sum or Rs. 65,000. It was contended on behalf of the company that the petitioner had incurred no loss with regard to the cost of printing the advertisements. It was also urged that the policy of insurance provided for a disputed claim to be referred to arbitration ; that the petition was filed only to bring pressure to bear upon the company to allow and pay the claim made by the petitioner, without his having justified it by requisite documentary evidence. The company contended that the petitioner had not expended any amount whatsoever towards the printing of the advertisements and nothing was due payable to the petitioner by the company under the policy.

4. The petition has now reached hearing to consider the question whether it should be admitted and directions be given thereon. Mr. sorabji on behalf of the petitioner contended that the policy issued by the company was a special contingency policy; that it was not a contract of indemnity; that upon the happening of the event specified in the policy ; it was obligatory upon the company to the sum of Rs. 65,000 without inquiring into the question of actual loss suffered by him. It was also urged by him that it was a valued policy and the company was liable to pay the sum of Rs. 65,000 to the petitioner in the events that have happened. According to him, as the claim of the petitioner was not satisfied in spite of service of a statutory notice dated January 21, 1969, the company must be deemed to be unable to pay its debts in accordance with the provisions of section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. He therefore, submitted that this is a fit case whether the winding-up petition should be admitted and consequential directions be given by the court.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Nariman, on behalf on the company, contended that the policy merely contained a contract of indemnity, that it was not a consequential loss policy, which specifically insured profits. He urged that the present policy was issued in favour of the petitioner relying upon the various representations which are set out in the company's attorneys' letter dated February 5, 1969, addressed to the petitioner's attorneys. He submitted that the policy was not, what is normally called in insurance law, a valued policy that having regard to the terms and conditions of the policy, the petitioner was only entitled to claim a loss that may be suffered by him by reason of cost of advertisements being incurred by him ; that the sum of Rs. 65,000 mentioned in the policy was the maximum amount that could be claimed by way of loss under the policy. He also pointed out that having regard to the terms and conditions of the policy, there was an arbitration claused and an award of the arbitrators as therein specified was a condition precedent to any effective claim being made by the petitioner. His submission is that there is a bona fide dispute as regards the existence of the liability of the company under the policy and the quantum of the amount that can be claimed by the petitioner as the insured. His submission is that when such is the position, the petition for winding up is an abuse of the process of the court.

6. Though it is called in the petition that the company is insolvent, at the hearing, Mr. Sorabji fairly conceded that it is not the case of the petitioner that the company is commercially insolvent. In fact, as pointed out by Mr. Nariman on behalf of the company, there are cash amounts lying to the credit of the company in its banking account to the tune of Rs. 78 lakhs. The only ground on which the petition is pressed at this stage is whether the company can be deemed to be unable to pay its debts by reason of its failure or neglect to pay the amount in spite of the service of the statutory notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956.

7. Under section 433 of the Companies Act, a company may be wound up by the court, inter alia, on the ground that it is unable to pat its debts. Section 134 enumerates the circumstances where a company may be deemed unable to pay its debts. We are only concerned in the present case with the provisions of sub-section (1)(a)of section 434. Under that provision, a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its detbs if a creditor by assignment or otherwise to whom the company is indebted in a sum exceeding Rs. 500 then due, has served on the company by causing it to delivered at its registered office, by registered post or otherwise, a demand under his hand requiring the company to pay the sum so due and the company has for three weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum, or to secure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor.

8. Under this provision, a company can be wound up on a petition of a creditor only if its is unable to pay its just debts. The inability is indicated by its neglect to pay after a proper demand and the lapse of three weeks. Such neglect must be judged by the facts of each case. Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the court first has to see is whether the dispute on the face of each case. Where the defence is that the debt is disputed all that the court first has to see is whether the dispute on the face of it is genuine or merely a cloak for the company's real inability to pay just debts : See Tulsidhas v. Bharatkhand Cotton Mills.

9. Circumstances relating to inability of the company to pay its debts are no well-settled. It is unnecessary to refer to the various cases on this point. It will be enough if reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Amalgamated Commercial Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami , wherein the Supreme Court has approved of the law laid down in Buckley on the Companies Acts, 13th edition , page 451. It is there observed :

"It is well - settled that a winding-up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of a debt which is bona fide disputed by the company. A petition presented ostensible,y for a winding up order but really to exercise pressure will be dismissed, and under circumstances may be stigmatized as a scandalours abuse of the process of th e court. AT one time petitions founded on disputed debts were directed to stand over till the debt was established by action. If, however, there was no reason to believe that the debt, was established by action. If, however, there was no reason to believe that the debt, if established would not be paid, the petition was dismissed. THe modern practice has been to dismiss such petitions. But, of course, if the debt is not disputed on some substantial ground, the court may decide it on the petition and make the order."

10. The claim is made by the petitioner under a policy of insurance issued by the company. THe policy is headed "Special contingency policy.," The operative part of this policy is as under :

"Now this policy witnesseth that during the period or during the continuance of this policy by renewal and subject to the terms, conditions and provisos contained herein or endorsed herein THE COMPANY SHALL INDEMNIFY THE INSURED against :

Loss or damage by fire and/ or lightning and /or burglary, house - breaking and theft to the undermentioned property not exceeding in respect of each or any of the several items hereunder th sum set opposite the rate respectively and not exceeding in the whole the total sum insured and not exceeding in any case the amount of insurable interest therein of the insured at the time of the happening of the insured peril.

Block in trust Rs. 5,000 Printing charges Rs. 15,000

------------------------

Total sum insured Rs. 20,000

11. The insurance further covers consequential loss in an amount of Rs. 65,000 being the cost of the various advertisements such loss arising from fire, and/or burglary, house - breaking and theft and/or non- production and non-distribution of the brochure, Cricket's in the Air, and/or dur to the proposed M.C.C. Test match not taking place in Bombay for any reason whatsoever.

12. It is not disputed in the present case that the M.C.C. Test match did not take place in Bombay as the visit of the M.C.C, team was canceled for non-availability of foreign exchange. It is the petitioner's case that before the announcement of the news about the cancellation of the visit of the M.C.C. team to this country, he had secured confirmed orders to the tune of Rs. 62,400 particulars of which are given in exhibit B to the petition. Besides these orders, he also expected to get further orders to the extent of Rs. 23, 950 from the usual customers whose names are also mentioned in the latter part of exhibit B to the petition. Apart from securing these orders no further costs were incurred by him towards the costs of advertisement.

13. The first question that arises in this petition is whether the policy contains a contract of indemnity or whether is is a special contingency policy as shown by the heading thereof. The operative part of the policy is in from "the company shall indemnify the insured against .......... " It is now well-settled that the essence of any indemnity clause is that the assured must prove a loss. The assured cannot recover anything under the main indeminity clause or make any claim against the insurance until the assured has been found liable and so sustained a loss. Sometimes it may happen that the policy may be a pure and simple contingency insurance. When such is the case, ordinarily, in general terms, it may be defined as an insurance which provides for the making of payments in the event of a specified of loss which that event entails. Having regard to the heading of the policy and the terms thereof, it will be one of the questions to be decided whether it contains a mere contract of indeminity or whether it is a simple contingency insurance under which consequential loss has been specifically insured without further inquiring into the actual amount of loss sustained by the insured. Further, it is the case of the company that this policy was issued relying upon certain representations that were made by the petitioner at the time when he approached the company for issue of the policy. It is the case of the company that the represented to the company that he intended to collect advertisements from various business houses for being printed in the brochure which he proposed to bring out at the time of the M.C.C. test match in Bombay; that he wished e to protected, inter alia, against any loss which he might suffer in the course of having the advertisements printed if the said brochure is not produced or distributed or the said proposed test match did not take place in Bombay; that the petitioner further represented that the costs of his having the advertisement printed would amount to Rs. 65,000 and that he wished to be protected against losing that amount if after he expended the sum, the brochure was not produced and/or not distributed for any reason whatsoever including the test match not taking place in Bombay.

14. That such representations were made was sought to be made out on behalf of the company having regard to the wording of the preamble part of the policy of insurance. It is there stated :

"Whereas P.C. Engineer, Esq., Prop : Messrs. Engisports, bombay, ........ has delivered to the British India General, Insurance Company Limited .......... certain information adn particulars........ for the insurance hereinafter contained............."

15. A further question also arises in this petition whether the policy relied upon by the petitioner is what is commonly called a valued policy where under the parties agreed beforehand in estimating the value of the subject assured by way of liquidated damages or whether the sum of RS. 65,000 mentioned in the policy is the sum for which the insure accepts liability. Further, the policy is issued subjects to the terms and conditions printed on the reverse thereof. One of the conditions therein specified, being condition No. 8 provides for reference to arbitration in respect of differences arising out of the policy. THis condition, inter alia, contains a stipulation that it is hereby expressly stipulated an declared that it shall be a condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this policy that the award of such arbtirator, arbitrators or umpire of the amount of the loss or damage is disputed shall be first obtained. THe contention on behalf of the company is that, as , under this term, an award is made a condition precedent to any right of action or suit, it is not permissible to the petitioner to give a statutory notice under section 434 because he has no cause of action until he has first secured the award as therein provided. These are, amongst others, the several complex questions and the petitioner insists upon their determination under pressure or threat of a winding up petition. This is not a case where the company has denied its liability on frivolous or vexatious grounds. The denial of liability by the company is based upon substantial grounds. When such is the case, it cannot be said that the company had neglected to pay the debt within the meaning of section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. To permit the petitioner to agitate all the questions by resorting to a winding up petition will be an abuse of the process of the court. The only, ground on which the inability to pay the debts is pleaded is the neglect to pay within the meaning of section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that the company is commercially insolvent or is in insolvent circumstances.

16. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The costs of this petition are quantified at Rs. 500. Such costs will be the costs in the arbitration proceedings or a suit, if such arbitration proceedings are commenced or suit is instituted within a period of 12 weeks from today. If no such arbitration proceedings are commenced or the suit is filed within 12 weeks from today, the petition shall pay the costs of the company of this petition which are fixed at Rs. 500.

17. Petition dismissed.

British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. State Of Maharastra

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Company's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. State Of Maharastra

Comments