In re Multi Block Limited [1977] FJSC 81; Civil Case 128 of 1977 (9 September 1977)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 128 OF 1971

Between:

IN THE MATTER of MULTI BLOCK LIMITED a
duly incorporated company having its registered office in Suva

and

IN THE MATTER of the Companies Ordinance (Chapter 216)

DECISION

The petitioner has petitioned the Court for winding up of the respondent company. The petition is supported by four other creditors of the Company for whom Mr. Whippy also appears.

Mr. Jaswant Singh appeared for the company on whose behalf an affidavit was filed sworn by Shanti Lal a director of the company. This affidavit disclosed that some seven debtors of the company were indebted to the company in the total sum of $9,672.00 and the company was in the course of pursuing the debtors through the Court.

The affidavit admits the petitioning creditor's judgment debt of $3,434.14 and the fact that the petitioner had issued a writ of fieri facias on which there was a return that the company had no goods or chattels on which to levy execution.

The affidavit indicated that the company had ceased business but that it would meet its debts if it could collect moneys owing to the company. Mr. Jaswant Singh conceded that it was just and equitable that the company should be wound up so that the get in the company's debts and pay all creditors of the company.

As the Court was about to make an order winding up the company Mr. H.M. Patel appeared and after conferring with Mr. Singh advised the Court that he was acting for the company and advised the Court that the company intended to carry on business and argued that an order should not be made as this would be likely to prejudice the actions which had been instituted to recover the company's debts which were sufficient if recovered to meet all the creditors debts. The conflict in the instructions given to Mr. Singh and Mr. Patel was not explained and I can only assume they were instructed by different directors of the company who were out of touch with each other.

The petition is based on section 168(b) of the Companies Ordinance and is in proper form. The facts alleged in the petition are not denied except the company's alleged inability to pay its debts.

I have considered all the facts and consider it is just and equitable that the Company should be wound up. I am satisfied also that the Company is presently unable to pay the debts and has no available assets on which execution can be levied.

I therefore grant the application for winding up of the company and order that the company be wound up.

R. G. MISHRA
JUDGE

Suva, 9th September, 1977.